I get that libertarians have been anti support of war and all but you either don’t at all understand their philosophy or are just making comments to spite them. None are suggesting that Ukraine doesn’t have the right to fight for their land and freedom. They just think the US is trying to use Ukraine as a proxy war to hurt Russia. Rather then doing everything in their power to bring peace to the area. They believe this not because Russia says it but also because multiple American military officials and senators have said this.
Careful, suggesting the Russian East should be independent is getting awfully close to Chinese propaganda territory. Sure independence in the Russian West is fair game, but Siberia and the Far East? Nǐ hǎo, shíguāng huài shíguāng
No this is propaganda, nato do have a head is the united state empire , it control all and all his territory only exist with the annexation of land by force , is an empire , México was invaded and lost land , also Hawái , the Philippine was invaded , Irak , your lie start with country existing in a vacuum , no United States only exist becouse it control land it got by force , genocide of natives , slavery , etc, nato is rule by America and the supreme generals are American . There is no rule of law, as law only exist to serve American power , America veto any resolution in the security council it like , has not a sign the convention of the sea or is part of treaty of Rome , it has use terrorist and dictators , don’t make me laugh , Barack drone program is estimated to murder over 100,000 civilians, where are Europeans sanction for their crimes , no where , is al a show , it has done all Rusia do , including annexation, invasion , violation of laws ,etc . Also any sanction or other country violate the un charter , only the security consul can do it all is a joke .
I will tell you what country really are , they are like franchise corporation of hell , yes the world is a fraud , there are other dimensions and one is hell . Human civilizations are cultivated to produce a resource , this is the human souls ,country are consecrated to hell , country are government and this are the tentacles of the secret society that rule them , states don’t serve people, people are use to serve the state , states are private corporation, they are satanic , if normal humans know politics is a fraud , that the spiritual planes are real they would vomit in terror , there is no good country all are demonic , the elite serve non human being , this are the gods of pagans religion , many were transform in to human saint by the church , myth etc . What I tell you is not that America is evil , but every single country is evil , atheism is a political tool to deceive , out world is a network of secret society working to serve hell , conflict are program to catalyze change , if you knew how real what I tell you is you would try to contact me .
As someone with some libertarian beliefs this video was spot on, there are many limitations with pure libertarianism that are simply ignored or denied and I find that weird, just like any ideology that doesn't accept change.
Very interesting video, as usual. One small critique: I found it more difficult in this video than previous ones to distinguish when the speaker was quoting someone rather than speaking for himself. Various cues like noticeably changing the speaker's cadence, putting quoted text on screen, inserting more "he wrote" and "he said" into the script, or literally having more speakers might help.
This is the level of the comment-section I expect at this channel, given the apparent intellectual capacity of the author of all these videos. Thank you, @marinredhelm, for keeping us all honest. It's easy to get carried away when everyone is singing in the same choir.
18:09 you mention Singapore, but Singapore is actually a really bad example. Singapore is not a functional democracy; Singapore has been a one party dictatorship since close to its founding, with a ruling party which games their system so other parties exist on paper but are prevented from coming to power in any substantive way. Singapore is possibly the only highly functional dictatorship in the world. If you look at how Singapore is run, it is *highly* centralized, and does not function as an anti-fragile decentralized system. It just happens to make mostly well informed and wise decisions. It is truly an outlier. Singapore is the Apple Computer of dictatorships. Apple is highly centralized and does not operate in the way more open platforms operate, but it keeps winning because it makes good decisions in spite of being highly centralized.
Yet it isn't really considered to be a dictatorship. It's officially classified as a "flawed democracy" and is on the lower end of that particular ranking. Dictatorship is more than just not being able to vote for different parties. It also includes universal values, civil liberties, and constitutional protections.
2 года назад
Have international observers ever found fault with the conduct of Singapore's elections? Singapore is a city-state. It's no more centralised than other cities. Also look around, many cities around the world have had the same government for decades. Or look at Germany: the government of state of Bavaria has been dominated by a single party (CSU) since the founding of the Bonn Republic in the 1940s. Does that make Bavaria a dictatorship? (You are right, that Singapore has some weird election rules. First-past-the-post makes it hard for small parties to win seats. A proportional system like they have in eg Bavaria would make that easier. But many countries around the world like UK or US have first-past-the-past and are still democracies.) The rules in Singapore don't so much favour the PAP as they favour the incumbent. I am worried about what might happen if either the PAP slides further into incompetence, or a less competent party gets elected. Also, full disclosure: as far as I can tell the least competent policies that Singapore has are those where the PAP listens to the population instead of doing The Right Thing. Eg migration is not as free as economic orthodoxy would suggest. There's also other areas where policy is better than much of public opinion. (You see the latter in many countries around the globe.)
Singapore really is a bizarre case study. I think it really gets away with as much as it does b/c it's effectively a city-state that's maintained high, Western level standards of living. really impressive that it's pulled that off but a stupidly hard model to replicate anywhere else.
this is the western learned ignorance. dictatorships don't work for them. its not a system where you can easily manipulate system using financial means. dictatorships can be successful at least some version of semi dictatorships with some balances. most important is rule of law. we need more experimentation with governing and not to stick religiously to some ideas.
@@tylerbozinovski427 in Singapore can you get arrested or otherwise penalized for embarrassing the ruling party or leader, or otherwise saying things that those in power do not approve of?
To Snowden's defense, he didn't choose Russia - his passport was cancelled while he was on the flight from Hong Kong to Moscow. After landing, he couldn't continue his route to Ecuador because the passport was invalid. He had to live in the airport terminal for over a month, before getting an asylum in Russia. Disclaimer: I work for Google; this comment is my personal opinion.
The arguments from russian propaganda that the US and the EU would "cancel" russias greates composers, philosophers, thinkers and so on, is just perplexing to the point of it being absolut nonesense. If a Tschaikowsky or Dostoevsky would be alive today, they'd be imprisoned by the current russian goverment 5 times over.
@@banger2998 Modern Russian propaganda is very deliberately inconsistent. They try to make you question logic itself. Gaslighting of the highest order.
Wasn’t Dostoevsky exiled to do hard labour in Siberia for 4-5 years and escaped a death sentence last second? He was cancelled by Russia even back than lol
i dont quite understand how whistleblowers are a bad thing according to taleb. could you eventually make a follow up discussion on that? how are we supposed to improve our systems if we cant know their problems?
I don't think that it was being a whistle blower that was the issue but the use of his name and likeness in such a way that promoted Russia. It was mainly the hypocrisy of reporting on a state for conducting unjust surveillance on its people in the name of freedom, then fleeing to a noted unfree dictatorial state. If he reported and fled to Switzerland or a neutral nation and became an advocate for freedom and not promoted any dictatorial state there would be no issue.
his issue is that, as he sees it, snowden and assange are not mere whistleblowers, but pro-russian agitators who use the info they leak to create specific outcomes. there's a case to be made that both of them have been somewhat selective in what they release, when, and to who, in such a way that it makes the west look bad while concealing things which would make russia look bad. assange in particular seems like he may have withheld leaks about russian sins while highlighting leaks about american ones, etc. - i am not stating anything decisively either way as i have not looked deeply into this, but that would be why.
I can understand the point about hypocrisy: shouting about the lack of transparency of the US government while sheltering in Russia, but yeah, it's overall a very strange point amidst the broader context of self-correction of systems. It's impossible to correct a problem you don't know about.
It isn’t that the whistleblowers are bad, it’s that they then seek friendship with those who go against even what they are saying, and keep quiet about that in order to keep that friendship. Take Snowden for example, since this is what was talked about in the video. He uncovered and showed the world how the US gov spies on everyone, and says how wrong they are in doing so. While at the same time, he got refuge in Russia, who is notorious for implementing such spying tactics on their own people, but says nothing against Russia since they protect him from the US. Thus, since he says nothing against Russia, and is friends with them, he either knowingly or not, helps Russian propaganda. Think of it as those people being hypocrites, where their morals only apply when it is in their own self interest.
While he does provide some interesting analysis and makes some good points, I am amused that Taleb as usual was unable to write an essay where he could not stop himself from 1) shilling his old book and 2) calling someone he disagrees with an idiot. Do bring in more commentators and essayists in the future though.
Good Times, a bit of constructive criticism: I feel your videos do not indicate clearly enough when you're reading a quote and when you're speaking yourself. Could there be some indicator on-screen so I don't have to pay attention so intently when a quote starts and ends?
10:50 "The Anglo-Phoenician world of mercantile cosmopolitanism" Hugh Trevor-Roper pointed out that Europe's rebirth after the collapse of Rome, came through trade with Byzantium. Constantinople thrived after the fall of Rome. Byzantine trading outposts were established at Bari Amalfi and Venice. Maintaining the mechanisms of banking, insurance and bills of exchange Genoa and Pisa also developed along the same lines.
@@mavigogun Byzantium collapsed because they had a weak, chaotic autocratic administrative mechanism constantly killing its leaders, leading to careful, ineffective military action because every administration had to keep a weapon pointed at its courtiers and generals as much as they pointed one at the enemy of the state. The Catholic world could have come to Eastern defense and Byzantium would still have fallen.
This is due to Taleb being part of the pre-war Lebanese upper class and he has shown ample proclivity towards inserting "Phoenican", as in Levantine culture in anything he thinks of as good.
You need to screw your lens out of focus to see such a thing as 'anglo-phoenician merchantile cosmppolitanism'. Better focus on the details and particular men to see what it was.
As a Russian i do understand the benefits of decentralization, but the devision of the Russian Federation would bring a lot of new wars, and I can't stand such a scenario. The Russian Federation is a federation already, and it was way more decetralized just two decades ago. We just need to reform the institutions back
Yes. As a “russophile” at heart, it is a great pain for me to watch the state the russian culturosphere is. Had russia kept its trajectory of late 90s and early 00s, by now you guys would be an economic superpower with all the post-soviets dying to be in closer ties with Moscow.
I agree that the best solution for Russia would be a decentralized, democratic state within its internationally recognized borders. The main problem is the lack of democracy, e.g. balance of powers, checks and balances, independent courts, independent media, NGOs/civil society, and of course human rights and especially minority rights.
@@sinoroman The republics are largely powerless, except for Chechnya (which is basically a direct vassal of Putin). Over the past decade, their powers have been gradually stripped, all the way down to the title of the head of state (Only Tartarstan has stubbornly kept it's head as a "President")
The Kievan Rus was founded by the descendants of Rurik who invaded from modern day Novgorod making the Kievan Rus Russian and Ukrainian(although the Ukrainians did not exist until the mongol conquest split the Rus
@@Ragulenschaft what people mistakenly call Byzantium was in fact the eastern Roman Empire. They spoke Greek. It was proto modern Greece. It wasn’t until the disaster of 1453 that you could call it proto Turkey.
Let's not be hasty in hoping a bright future and look at history, a broken Russia often did not mean happy little liberal republics, but power vacuums in which warlords and tyrants rose to unify Russia.
You go a bit too far with praising federalism. The German example is a good one. Germany is not only a Federation but also a unified state. The Netherlands is a decentralised unity state. These are points on a spectrum between central and federal. The key question is: for what type of decision is which option more useful?
Russia used to be a patchwork of principalities before being ravaged by the Mongol invasions. Russia can exist as a vibrant and prosperous society even without the hegemony of Moscow.
In the old chronicles the names of the rulers of Kievan Rus "Vladimir" are written as "Volodimer" which is more akin to the Ukrainian name "Volodymyr" than to the Russian "Vladimir". The name Vladimir was borrowed in the northern part of Rus from the Bulgarians. The Old East Slavic language showed a greater resemblance to the Ukrainian language. Besides, Kievan Rus used a coat of arms similar to the coat of arms of Ukraine.
@@slonskipieron 1.Have you heard that languages can evolve and change? For example, the Old East Slavic language is very different from Ukrainian and Russian, since Ukrainian changed under the influence of the Polish language, and Russian under the influence of many reforms. 2. The modern coat of arms of Ukraine is a converted coat of arms of the Rurik dynasty, which was preserved in the flag of the first capital of Rus - the city of Staraya Ladoga 3. Kyiv was the third capital of Rus, after Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod. 4. Most of Rus is modern Russia.
Even taking that as true, he adds examples and analysis, generalizing from such a wide variety of domains that he creates a new synthesis. His starting point of financial derivatives are well outside anything you could call federalism. While it would be ridiculous to to call his examples of the body’s fragility-handling of small repeated stress vs large infrequent stress-derivative of federalism.
@@MrOlivm It's analgous to federalism because the key political advantages of federalism are anti-fragility, decentralization, and redundancy which can be abstracted to other realms such as economic and strategic stability as well.
Yeah, it's not exactly a new, groundbreaking view of things. The US has been using and refining a federal system for 240 years, basing the modern federal system off of medieval and classic civilizations. The federal system has roots as far back as the (extremely dysfunctional) Holy Roman Empire and even the Roman Empire's model of provincial governance. Decentralized, multi-ethnic societies are nothing new. Taleb basically just restated the reasons why the system is so successful and has stuck around. The Roman Empire was so dependent on internal trade lines that the loss of just a few provinces doomed the entire system. Rome itself was fed with grain from Egypt, olives for oil came from Iberia, wood from the Balkans and technology from Greece. The parallels between the modern global economic system and the Roman empire are pretty striking when it comes to supply chains. Near-industrial level of production, mining and farming too. the debasement of the Denarii is effectively modern Inflation and money printing. In so many ways, we're using a system that is roughly 2000 years old. Can we really call our modern system a 20th century creation (ie the Liberal Economic World Order) or is it just a revitalized version of an ancient system?
@@Lusa_Iceheart The economics are ancient, the importance placed on individual liberty is modern, though it predates the 20th, with it's philosophical basis originating in the Renaissance and popularized in the Enlightment - with the American and French revolutions being particularly prominent.
Yes. Speaking as a westerner, it is far more to our benefit that Russia keeps Siberia than that it fall into Beijing’s orbit. I disagree that Russia needs to be dismantled as a geographic territory - the state apparatus can be dismantled while keeping the borders intact. A more federal (that is to say, decentralised) federation could be maintained while overall unity is likewise kept. A change in the equation rather than it’s erasure. If the US benefits from its unity, why doesn’t Russia? Not because of its size, or even its disunity in overall world view, but because the nature of the state doesn’t allow for a suitable degree of autonomy right the way through. Its integrity as a territory, however, is exceedingly beneficial for all of its inhabitants. They have far more bargaining power as a single state than as fractious little republics who would be absorbed into their neighbours spheres of influence.
@@geno9788 so what, seriously what is so bad about that? Honestly I’d be pretty happy with an independent Siberia. China will become the place where the world is centred around in the next 10 years.
@@oo--7714 China in a repressive foreign power which is currently welding peoples doors shut and slaughtering Uighurs en masse. They are evil and we need to divide them up and ensure their perverse ideology dies with them.
@@oo--7714 You don't pay attention to the history of geopolitics much, huh? Nobody has fought China as much in the past 70 years than Russia. They have kept each other in check for almost a century. "What's so bad about that?". Well, it would destroy nearly a century's worth of checks and balances by destroying the power balance in the east. Siberia would change hands, Mongolia would no longer be protected, the Pacific would become another dual-naval arena rather than the trio that currently vies for it. How can you hear of the collapse of an entire balance that would subject many to uncertain geopolitical fates, and not see what is bad about that? Is it a lack of knowledge, or sympathy? Are you the kind of person that just enjoys seeing the world burn?
Not a fan of Russia by any stretch, but this whole video seems a little contrived. I don't think any Russian would accept the balkanization of their country as a good thing
@@kubabadach8581 Russia lacks a civil society and its populace has minimal agency. Any collapse would involve local strongmen/governors of oblasts (i.e. Kadyrov esque figures) pulling away away from the Kremlin to safeguard their own interests and territories. Add 6K nuclear warheads and carbon reserves, which would naturally involve foreign elements/interference. It would be like China’s 1920s warlord period on a bigger scale with WMDs. I dislike the Russian system immensely but in no way would a balkanization of that country be peaceful or conducive towards global peace. This whole video is at best wishful and/or deluded thinking. Best bet is to wait for Putin to commit suicide with two bullets to back of the head and empower Navalny figures and the Russian opposition.
Profound arguments you make, I have been keeping track of the political situation in Russia for a while (since ~2014), and your conclusions are pretty sensible. Keep up with a good work, my polish friend! 🇺🇦❤️🇵🇱
I don't really understand how a country breaking up and then devolving into regional feuds and being influenced by external foreign influences is somehow better for the people? By your logic a country like Iraq would have been a success story, because you overthrew the dictator and people "have more freedom". People are too quick to put their own assumptions on geopolitics when they don't really understand what the consequences of their actions.
@@qefewfwdcwdc his argument was not federalism he literally stated a Siberian republic and a Krasnodar republic would be good things. he is not calling for a Federal Republic of Russia. he wants Russia as a entity gone. replaced with ethnic republics and a Revangist Muscovy that would bring about a new Russian Hitler.
Russian here. We have a lot of talks about this topic in particular right now. The general perspective is that, for the longest time, the people and the state were largely separated. Even the people, that support the government, agree, that you can't generally rely on the government's apparatus for most things, and that it brings significantly more problems than benefits, which was obvious even after the Soviet union collapsed. Decentralization is 100% necessary, but whether or not it has to be accompanied by territories leaving the federation - is a big question. We'll have to wait and see. Peace to everyone, and, as they say nowadays - Svoboda Rossii, Slava Ukraini, Zhive Belarus
Thats interesting to hear that this topic is being discussed or considered by Russians. If the far east territories were no longer under at least some form of central control they would be pounced upon by China, negating any benefits of self rule in the first place.
I'm glad you touched on Germany, a nation that had to rebuild itself after not one, but two world wars and did so very, very quickly. This more recent occurrence, via it's economy rather than military power. As a result, Germany has become a powerhouse within the EU, to the extent that some are even afraid Germany may "federalize" the EU and become it's head of state, all without firing a shot this time around. 😆 In a sense, the major world powers sit at a boardgame and there are rules. Nations like the US and Germany understand these rules very well. China seems to understand them. Russia on the other hand, has demonstrated the opposite and has shown a regression to the point of breaking the rules and heaping consequences on itself, wondering why. They broke one of the most important unwritten rules: *don't directly attack a nation with a substantial voice.* Indeed, maybe they believed Ukraine didn't have such a voice but if so, they've severely miscalculated.
Right now Germany isn't representing the sentiments of the rest of the EU toward defense, so that is unlikely. If it was a simple as buying everyone off, I doubt they could afford that either. They got themselves out of debt by leveraging their position in the EU, and they don't want to go backward.
@@MrTaxiRob well the us has that option too but it appears it want to put itself very close to russian border hmm i wonder why ? Let me ask you since the people of this channel are hypocritical what if cuba decided to join the csto ? Yeah give yourself an answear to thsi questiin and you will get why the russians ae screaming about their own security.
12:21 Just because the West is already "transparent" and "decentralized" does not mean that it couldn't be even more so and that there aren't any flaws with the current system. Moscow offered Snowden asylum because by exposing the American government's violations of privacy, he discredited it to an extent, and any "attack" against it indirectly benefits Russia's image. But that's far from meaning that Snowden works for Moscow, he did what he had to do by exposing how the American govenrment, the supposed epitome of a democratic system, abuses its citizens' trust and spies on them. Point is, the West, while being better of a system than its Russian counterpart, has more than its fair share of flaws and refusing to acknowledge those by blindly believing that any criticism of it must be done by Russian sympathizers, you fall victim to the same propaganda most Russians have fallen victim to and end up going along with anything your govenrment says without ever questioning anything. I'm honestly disappointed you'd go to the extent of flat out calling libertarians "idiots" for being critical of a system, thought you better than this.
Yeah that whole section got rather rediculous and sounds far more like that view of a Russian propagandist (in outlook rather than alignment) rather than someone who likes the open western system.
"... disappointed you'd go to the extent of flat out calling libertarians "idiots"" The video explains Taleb's ideas. Should we assume, though, that you identify as a libertarian?
Lets be clear that this video is presenting not the channels views but rather highlighting someone else's opinion piece. Which is to say they likely agree with most of it, enough to highlight it, but not necessarily all of it.
You state that Germany became rich, an industrial powerhouse, by being forced to embrace federalist, but you don't seem to agree that Russia could do the same, but that it must collapse, that it must break up? I want rid of Putin, I would like Russia to become less centralised, to become more federal, to push power down to the more local level, even if that level is at state (oblast/republic) level. Whether that is even possible is debatable. I might agree that it would be in the benefit of the Russian people for it to split up, though again that is debatable, that those in power would never decentralise, but I think if the individual Oblasts and Republics seceeded from the Russian Federation I don't think it would be a benefit for most Russians. The DR Congo/Venezuela are rich in resources but the people of that country aren't rich, they are just controlled by outside parties whilst their resources are exported to the highest bidder making some people rich, but not many, exactly what happened in Russia after the fall of communism and the same would happen again if this was repeated today.
@@LancesArmorStriking Considering you and Germany carved Poland up and took all their territory I don't think you have the right to make any comment about the Poles right now, do you?!!! If I were you I'd just keep quiet!!!
@@mattpotter8725 Oh, I'm sorry, did that make you mad? Tough shit, I'll say whatever I want. And the _Poles,_ not the Russians, are the ones claiming to be Westernized and enlightened. So if they start suggesting the same thing Russia is trying, they are just hypocrites. Oh and the Polish government does have a plan to try and sow divisions within RF, so they're really already hypocrites. Weren't postwar borders supposed to be sacred??
Well Germany did sort of break up it lost all it's lands east of the Oder and Neisse Rivers, was partitioned into two states with a divided capital, was forced to host foreign armies on it's soil and had to give up the Saar for about a decade.
@@LancesArmorStriking Not mad, and last time I looked Poland hadn't tried to invade a sovereign country, they've not shelled innocent civilians, not committed war crimes, and haven't annexed parts of another country by force. I might not particularly like the current Polish government but I'd take them 100 times over than Putin, and twice on Sundays!!!
Early in the US' history, in fact during its formation, there already was a Federalist faction led by Alexander Hamilton (whose on the $10 bill), but lost out to Thomas Jefferson's populism that had its advantages, but allowed for sectarianism and acquiesced to slavery and it took a Civil War to finally just wind up back at Federalism.
Hamilton's Federalism embraced the existing slave economy, else, no independence. Took decades for abolition to fester. Didn't see John Adam's jeopardize the country to emancipated did you?
As a Russian I can't agree to this video. Collapse of Putin's autocratic political system and federalization will be good for Russian, but collapse of the entire state will definitely not be. Suggested separation of Siberia republic will make its small population living like in OAE but fall majority of population in European part of the country into extreme poverty because current minimum standard living is supported by oil and gas revenues. Or separation of Kuban will cut off other regions from sea ports for example. Russian wide territory is an advantage and the problem is in the political system.
А жителей Сибири и Кубани кто-то спросил хотят ли они кормить остальных? Смотрите на регионы как на колонии конечно, "будут жить как в ОАЭ" - ух, как они посмели распоряжаться своими ресурсами самостоятельно?? Да и не стоит думать, что при "развале" все регионы вдруг разорвут отношения друг с другом, просто это будет происходить на равных условиях и скорее всего в условиях экономического и политического союза наподобие Евросоюза. Кубань не отрежет остальных от моря, также как и Германия не отрезает Чехию и Австрию от доступа к портам. И это уже будет равноценный союз, а не отношения метрополии с колониями, увы даже после смены режима власти в Москве будут все еще придерживаться колониальной политики, только полноценная деколонизация поможет справедливому и равноценному развитию всех 17 миллионов квадратных километров России. И это только экономические причины, а есть еще этнические: национальные меньшинства ущемляются, подавляется изучение языка, культуры, процветает расизм и ксенофобия. Зачем жить в одной стране с теми, кто не уважает твой язык и культуру, дискриминирует по внешности, акценту, религии?
@@nikolaia.9573 для этого достаточно федерализации, а не распада на отдельные государства с непредсказуемыми последствиями типо гражданских войн. А дальний восток станет просто колонией Китая, а не самостоятельным субъектом.
It's nice and idealistic. But the reality of a Russian collapse would be much, much uglier. Moscow is unlikely to just stand by and let huge portions of their territory declare independence and leave, especially under Putin. This would lead to civil war and massive unrest in a nation of 150 million with the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. The bloodshed and violence would kill millions and inevitably ripple outwards and destabilize all of Russia's neighbors, effectively the entire Asian continent. Worse nations that depend on Russian grain and food exports would stop getting them entirely. The war in Ukraine has already had a destabilizing effect on dozens of countries because of this, a civil war in Russia would make the situation even worse. Even in a scenario where Moscow is paralyzed, the kleptocratic elite of Russia and the commanders of military units are unlikely to respect New sovereign borders. Far more likely is that they embark on their own imperialistic quest which results in the same civil war and strife. Then there is the issue of various warlords all winding up with potentially hundreds of nuclear weapons and zero federal oversight. The results of a nightmare scenario like that are terrible enough that it bears no further explanation. The break up of Russia might be a good thing, and might help the Russian people, but I see no realistic peaceful transition to a breakup.
The front against Libertarians came a) out of nowhere b) does them unjustice and c) is a bold thing to do after minutes earlier claiming that Adam Smith is a pillar of the western civilisation.
Adam Smith was not a libertarian. Libertarians are usually followers of the Austrian school of economics, which opposes classical political economy and neo-classicism. Sometimes they aren't even that but just vulgar Randians.
The complete collapse of Russia would be a crisis in its own. While I support Ukraine, I'm certain Russia deserves to be treated the same way Germany was after ww2, but not collapse entirely.
@@nikoladoctorov553 - not really. The Russian Federation includes 22 independent Republics- well, until recent “reforms” by Putin stripped away local powers, and imposed Russ chauvinism. The Empire is a relic of another era that has grown too weak from corruption to survive internal challenges. It “deserves” nothing more than than the mess it has made of itself- and the people of those Republics and Oblasts deserve better.
Libertarians are right to call themselves "Libertarians". What they desire most strongly is Liberty, but liberty from what? Liberty from reality. Liberty from causality. They are all basically subjectivists.
If it comes to this, I would urge geostrategists from creating the whole class of small landlocked states out of existing Russian regions. Being small and landlocked is a cruel fate to have in Eurasia. It would just humiliate people in those states further, incentivizing them to snap back into imperialism with obsession over strategic depth and relinquish authority to a figurative Tsar. Instead, I think it would be optimal to *group* the constituent regions into bigger federalized states according to their geography, economy, financial means, culture and geopolitical realities and prospects. For example, Siberia and the Far East both have underinvested economy, terrible and high maintenance infrastructure, incredibly low population density and they are exposed to China, also not quite small Kazakhstan and Mongolia. It would be effectively a suicide for constituent oblasts, krais and republics to become independent and then be eventually be preyed upon or at best wallow in isolation (for landlocked regions). Even national republics like Buryatia and Tuva would prefer a genuinely federalist deal with Russians rather than be absorbed into Mongolia. So Siberia and Far East respectively need to stay grouped as two *separate* entities that will be able to have more or less equal footing with Kazakhstan and Mongolia, ally with them against China if need be. Another example is in Russian South. Stavropol Krai would do anything to join Krasnodarsky Krai being surrounded by Muslim majority republics from the east and the south. The neighboring Republic of Kalmykia would also prefer a federalist deal with Russian majority regions than be left alone facing frankly unpredictable Muslim majority republics that may yet turn into warmongering caliphates in that scenario. I believe the *rough* outline of this Russian commonwealth’s borders can be found in the existing map of Federal districts of Russia here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia. Of course, it might be altered to balance the power between these new states and reflect compromises struck by political actors as the described scenario unfolds. If it comes to pass, the West shouldn’t sit dumbstruck or revel in vindication at the disintegration of Russia. No, post-WWII Germany was rebuilt and pacified by European Coal and Steel Community, ensuring Germans don’t go destitute and thus rogue again. Much in the similar vein, the new federal states should be supported financially and enticed by European integration and NATO accession, conditional on implementation of rule of law, transparent and democratic government, etc. Such projects will also be much easier if the West will have the new 7-10 federal states to deal with instead of the existing 85 vastly different and often purposely handicapped regions.
"Look at the west. Is there a center? No. If there were one, moreover, it would be in Kyiv today" Damn, I have not thought about it this way, but you hit the nail spot-on on the head. Really good point. I do disagree with a lot of your takes about Snowden etc however - state-based surveillance is not justifiable based on stability.
@@dasbubba841 none of those cities holds any influence. Washington DC is the poltical soul of the west while Los Angles is the cultural hub of the west and New York is the financial capital of the west. the United States of America is the heart and soul of the west without the U.S Pax Americana the west would cannabalize itself. whoever the U.S president does the rest of the world follows. its very laughable that London holds any cultural clout in America or Berlin. only Paris has romantic clout in the west. everyone in the west admires America while Americans look up to no one since they make the rules.
Can someone explain me what is "true" democracy? USA is "democratic" but there is almost no difference in politics between both parties. Bush invades Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama invades Syria. Middle East is in western sphere of influence, so USA will continue their invasions no matter what party is now in power. Is it democratic? Or LGBT rights make the real difference? If I am an american and I want to stop wars on this planet, what party should I vote? There is no such party because geostrategic interestests of a country are on higher level than political system. So Meirscheimer is right and Talib is propaganda.
Waaaaw, this is one of the strongest videos you guys made in a while. You guys put a lot of information and 'cultural/sociatal emotions' in a clear and understandable perspective. We are at one of the most interesting crossroads in recent history. Whatever happens, the global context is going to evolve and regional answers will follow soon having a direct impact on every human living wherever. This might actually be the catalyst we need to make great and strive change to the 'Western living standards'. I'm following all these developments with an eye of great interest, longing for the context you guys offer on events happening right now.
Snowden is good though, we need people like him and Assange if we don't want to slide into autocracy and authoritarianism. The idea that people shouldn't expose sketchy stuff done by western governments is dangerous because if we allow them to get away with stuff like that, eventually they won't be any better than autocracies.
One big thing I'm worried about a Russian Collapse; what the Hell is gonna happen with their Thousands of Nukes?! Even if we got extraordinarily lucky and 90% of the warheads are malfunctioning (would have been an unthinkable assertion before the Ukraine War and all the equipment failures) and physically can't detonate; they still have the fissile material and base components to make a functional one. Plus the hardest ingredient to acquire for a nuclear weapon is the plutonium (or enriched uranium) at the core of its "physics package". The effort needed to secure that would be titanic in scope and might need to happen in the midst of a full blown Balkanization of Russia.
I mean even the Roman Empire while having a central figure such as an emperor was very decentralized in order to improve its amministration or even the Achaemenid empire with its satrapies, throughout all of history the most successful empires were the most decentralized ones and even the early Russian tsars knew this
Your criticism of Edward Snowden is very weak. It seems like your point is that he can't criticize the US whilst living in Russia, because Russia is even more authoritarian. This take makes no sense since Snowden has no option to move anywhere else without being extradited, has no option to get a fair trial and has consistently been critical of modern Russia.
Criticizing Snowden for operating from Russia when the only reason he is there is because the American government wants him dead or in prison is rather unfair, I think.
You would say that the two wars in Iraq were not about securing energy for the west in the form of oil but for the betterment of the nation by ousting Sadam? I'm skeptical about this. And how does Singapores decentralized status serve anything but themselves? Tax haven for the world (AKA modern bandits) and importer of cheap human labor living in harsh conditions. The individual wealth of Singapore does little to improve the broader region, let alone the world.
The first was about securing Kuwait. The second was about securing US dollar hegemony over the world (central banking, legal tender are flawed centralized systems anyway.. we can do much better than this and should as most of the West's current problems stem from running monopolized monetary systems that are badly working *).. Iraq was trying to establish other currencies for the oil trade. *) I can can explain this, takes a lot of time though and is NOT mainstream yet.
@@joansparky4439 saddam wanted kuwait like vladimir wants ukraine, any global monetary system is problematic without international cooperation, various dictators have wanted their own oil currencies, and have killed countless thousands to try and get it, there's a lot of oil under donbass, things don't change much
@@garygraham8373 Vlad just wants to destroy a democratic Ukraine.. all methods so far have failed, which means the last option (pure force) is now being used (and failing). As for your understanding of 'currencies'.. I suggest you first learn how they work. Oil under Donbas is of no use to Putin, because the only way to get it would be to nuke the rest of Ukraine.. no one will buy it from Putin after such a move. You don't even seem to be very versed in geopolitics, do you?
@@garygraham8373 Putin tried to keep Ukraine corrupt and under Russian control, Ukrainians didn't want that anymore. That's why he's using the last resort now - raw force. You got no idea how this works, do you? As for the oil under Donbas.. it's useless to Russia. The only way to get it is to nuke Ukraine. No one will buy that or other stuff from Russia after such a move. Again, you got no clue how geopolitics works. As for currency.. your naive and simple understanding of it is just embarrassing. I'd suggest you read Friedman/Rothbard on the matter to at least get up to speed with the mainstream economics of today.
@@Peanutcat I know this is anecdotal, but honestly....the people I know in my life who got hit are much better off than the kids whose parents wouldn't dare. Western countries are full of egocentric, fragile people, and it's definitely part of the reason why lol
@@XOPOIIIO Yeah and some of those opinions are idiotic, outdated, and factually disproven. Corporal punishment is not in the interest of a child in the immediate or long term
Transition to *democracy* is in the interest of Russians. The smoother the better. Handling the nuclear arsenal of a disintegrated Russia would be a nightmare even from the perspective of NATO. After what happened to Ukraine, none of the new countries would want to handover their nukes.
After the '90s, the Russians have a very flawed understanding of democracy/ (free) capitalism as "oligarchs/ criminals running free, unlimited in their skullduggery by anything". They had 10 years of experience of it, that they use as evidence of it being so. It will be a long & hard process towards it... It will (hopefully) need to be done, but I don't expect it to go this easily. It's likely a hybrid system would be better to start with (between the current system & a full liberal democracy, but I don't know what that would look like atm ^^ Maybe like Turkey? Who knows...
@@elektrotehnik94 well isn’t that what capitalism is? Oligarchs hold all the power and money and everyone else gets the scraps? That’s what most capitalists countries do anyways
@@elektrotehnik94 The process might be similar to what happened in Argentina in 1982. After loosing an unprovoked war for disputed territory, social contestation became unsustainable for the governing Junta; and a transition to democracy was the only way out. You could spot democratic gaps in any country in the world. But current-day Argentina is an advanced democracy, at least for South-American standards. So Russia might, in a near future, become and advanced democracy within Europe.
It is true, error correction is most important for longevity and stability and it is best achieved by decentralization and freedom, let all the people or make their own judgements and act as they thing is best within their own ability.
One thing tho.. you need personal freedom and private property enforced via some mechanic. How does that work decentralized? I'm trying to solve that puzzle for 3 months by now and can't see a solution. Democracy could work, but not in the form of representative or parliamentary democracy.. those versions are too centralized already = long term unstable (I can delineate this if needed).
Germany would be an economic power, as it has been for hundreds of years, regardless of whether it's federal or centralised. This 'federalism makes it stronger' narrative has always been ridiculous.
"Look at the west is there a center" yes, it's New York and Washington World trade organization, united nation, world bank, dollar etc Edit: they all either in America or belong to so America is the center you may say Center could change but currently all of this in America I also forgot Wall Street and federal reserve which effect world economy deeply and world health organization who depends on USA for support and also USA have most saying on especially world Bank and IMF
I mean aside from the obvious plethora of current issues ranging from the lack of infrastructure to the whole Russia very much being a... ah... risky place for ah... at the very least your personal wellbeing in 2022.
Well, Technically Russia it´s already a "federation" with "republics" inside, and they are also technically a "democracy". So all the paperwork has been done correctly. The problem is at the level of the political parties and the voters, and of course, corruption.
They are a federation in reality but the creator of the video just dismises that and propagades a destruction of a state that he has something personal against. He lies a lot in thsi video especialy about the republic, they enjoy a great amount of autonomy, they are fully allowed to practive their culture and religion and to speak their language. The author is so dumb he disregards the fact that the man in charge of he russian military the russia minister of deffence, sergei shoigyu is ethnicly tuvan.
@@Silver_Prussian Yes, as I said, Russia already works as the author wants. I think the problems of Russia are more political than institutional. Russia is already a "democracy" in paper, now they have to make it in reality: allowing small political parties to be independent, stop putting political opositors in jail, don´t threaten independent press, etcetera. Russia is like a Latin American country: "a free democratic, capitalist country" in paper, but an oligarchic, corrupt country in reality, and the war might worsen that. I feel bad for Russia, I think Putin committed a great mistake in February and dragged the country 30 years back in time.
@Cloud9the subjects of the federatuin have enough power and i already told you that russia is not like america and its subjects dont function like the state in the us and why should they ? They stil have mayors for every city and town they have councils and governers to de centralise more wpuod mean to disolve russia which is actualy the true intention behind all of this, to tear the country apart. Many tines histoey has showed one man can be better than many and the opposite it rrally depends on the nation itself which model it will follow. Take the countries in the middle east for example you kniw why democracy dosnt work there ? Because they are not like the nations in the west or america. You think you can just walk into these nations based on religious fundamentalist principles, drop a couple of bombs topple a dictator and start a democracy pfft please give a me break. It simular for russia and eastern europe those countries need a strong leadership because the people there need rules boundaries, protections, from foreign powers and from themselves.
Love your videos, but Snowden is based. He's in Moscow, not by choice. If he was in the US, he would surely rot in prison. Snowden, Manning, Assange, all heros.
The problem I have with them is not their release of information, it's the fact they only targeted one side for release of information. If you truly care about hitting back at the elites that ruin people's lives you need to understand these elites are everywhere, every nation has them. If you only hit at the US you strengthen Russia and China. You must release information on all of them together, and you must flee somewhere that won't benefit any of the superpowers. By fleeing to Russia you take the side of the Russian elite and their government, you stop being a hero or a martyr, you become a traitor.
@@asscheeks3212 that's one of the reasons people mistrust him, if he's "critical" of Putin, how come Putin does not hurt him, like he does all his other critics? It's why some people think he's a Russian agent.
@@asscheeks3212 yeah, and he flew from Hong Kong to Moscow and was restricted at the airport by authorities. His passport was declined. He just ended up there. I'm sure he would love to be back home with his family, but that would mean probably life in prison. Let's be thankful that he wasn't restricted in a country that would deport him to the US.
Really good video mate! I can't really add anything to this since I'm not much of expert and I'm here to learn but All I can say is, really nice analysis! Loved every bit of it!
Great material! I agree with most of the assertions in this video. Thank you. still , 5:35 If Rus' was Kievan , than Muscovy was a part of proto-Ukraine, rather than Ukraine having been a part of proto- Muscovy .
thats just Ukrainian nationalist bullshit. why did it take until 2022 for Ukraine to realize its national identity? the Kievan Rus was a eastern slavic confederation. with Kiev as its capital. Ukraine and Russia emerged equally out of this confederation of tribes. Muscovy got to assert its national identity much earlier than Ukraine did since Lithuania and then Poland conquered it followed by Russia. Ukraine as an idea only came about in 1918 before there was no such thing as Ukraine. The idea that some how the Kievian Rus were Russian or Ukranian states is very stupid since no such identity ever existed. they were Eastern Slavs who spoke Old Church Slavonic as their liturgical language. the mongols invaded and isolated the territories where Muscovy became city state and then its own confederation. while Kiev never regained independence until 1991. BOTH RUSSIA BELARUS AND UKRAINE COME FROM THE KIEVIAN RUS. Ukrainian and Russian identities were formed much later.
@@covfefe1787 «Вечно пьяный, до оскотинения, завистлив, жаден, злобен, туп. Миф о русской бане мгновенно рассеивается после того как пройдёшь мимо типичного русского. Запах перегара и давно не стираных порток отвратителен сам по себе, но к нему примешивается ещё и запах кислой капусты и прокисших щей, до которых он, русский человек, большой охотник. Любимое занятие - лежание на печи и мечты о лучшей жизни. Эти мечты постоянно подогреваются правящей верхушкой. К наукам не склонен, по причине своего отупения в следствии неумеренного потребления браги. Брагу потребляет по причине того, что не может выгнать самогона. Не хватает терпения. Из разнообразия языков, на матушке Земля, в совершенстве владеет одним - матерным. Физически вроде и здоров, но в то же время страдает манией величия и шовинизма. Причисляет себя к третьему Риму, а являет собой вторую Содом и Гоморру. Агрессивен. Очень агрессивен. Что подтверждается его постоянным захватом чужих земель, при этом утверждается там как хозяин и всё вокруг считает своим. Описание портрета русского можно дополнять бесконечно, однако это будет не столько утомительно читателям сколь противно. Увы». Максим Горький, «Собирательный образ русского человека»
II cannot see a break up of Russia being beneficial to anyone. Certainly not now, with a very powerful neighbour with imperial traits in its foreign policy or with all sorts of venture capital companies willing to set morals aside if they can make a quick buck. I think in the long run a gradual evolution towards a confederacy would be more desirable. Not in the least part because Russians have experienced more than enough misery the last 100+ years. Another one would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back I'm afraid, resulting in even more fatalism (at least that's how some characterize Russian culture) rather than entrepreneurship. I really would love to see the Russians getting a break from the historical strokes of bad luck, corrupt and authoritarian leadership and myths about Russian exceptionalism. Like all of us, Russians need food and shelter, protection, education, health care and a leadership that authentically cares about people. Apart from that, I do also not believe it's in the interest of the West or any other conglomarate to see Russia break apart. Imagine what would extremes could arise in the power vacuum or how easily they could get their hands on the nuclear arsenal. Putin and his oligarchy has got to go, yes. And then the West should not fall into the pitfall of hybris and triumphism again and genuinely reach out to help. We should have three decades ago.
@@garygraham8373 That's partially true. Most western companies were there with lightning speed to deal with the corrupt guys who usurped whatever was left of Soviet infrastructure and resources to make a quick buck. Oh, and to sell McDonalds, Gucci and all those other western goodies to the fat kids of the soon-to-be oligarchs. On the other hand, western attempts to help Russia rebuild its infrastructure and democratize its institutions were frustrated by the maffiose oligarchy slowly taking over control. So it's a two edged sword really. However, Russia was soon all but forgotten, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Offers from Russia to support in Afghanistan were dismissed - allegedly in a condescending manner and according to some observers that's when revanchism got a hold. The more so, because the West has shown little scruples in dealing with China or Arabb states with - at the time - far worse human rights records. So yes, Russia - or its leaders - aren't entirely exonerated, but the western block is also far from a saintly bunch. I hope we'll do better this time around. If the opportunity arises that is... Fingers crossed!
@@Pincer88 Oligarhy was quite powerful in Russia in 90-x, but not as much as they wanted or as much as wanna be communists try to picture. After Putin became a president, he significaly cut off their power, by strengthening state institutions and helping state's companies. So, mantra about "bad oligarchs who is a source of all evil in Russia" was already dumb before Putin, and even dumber than dumb for last 15 years. Wake up, sheeps, you wanted to free poor Russia from oligarhy? Then say hello, to your savior, V. V. Putin, who did exactly that long time ago. I mean, c'mon, any western propagandist who have a little bit of imagination, already post all this shit about "thee different groops who is a base for a Putin's political power", long long time ago. And now we returned to that chidish primitivism of "there are no responcible in Russia, exept for oligarhs - and Putin is their boss"? How lame.
Very good video, but i had occasionally significant difficulty to realise which bit is quoted and which is your writing. I think it might be to a large degree due to the pacing, not sure...
The lack of believe in personal responsibility, doesn't remove personal responsibility. I was living among Russians my entire life, I assure you, Putin is moderate.
I love this channel. Would you ever do a video about the concept of "The West" itself? Like what it is, how it formed, and where it could be headed? I think that could be very interesting.
You raise a lot of good points. This conversation needs to be extended. Russia is not a unique case, not deserving of special accommodation nor a different set of rules. Most russians fit easily into any of the western nations (as immigrants). Let's continue the analysis towards 'root causes' of the spasms of aggressive cruelty, which from time to time really screws things up in Russia.
One root cause is the huge amount of natural resources that it processes. It doesn’t need to change or modernize because it has what it needs by selling the natural resource.
There is a clear emphasis in the video on the value of federalism. One of the first major countries to enshrine this concept was the United States. It was followed by other English speaking countries like Canada and Australia. The value of acceptance of others who are not exactly like yourself has immense value in creating an open liberal democracy. It has great benefits for business and life in general. Speaking as an American any system of centralized authoritarianism has never been conceived as a possibility for the country, except by the most extreme political " nuts.". Federalism has been the only conceivable option for the United States given it's scale geographically. The tragedy is that Russia has never had a true federal system. It is one in name only. I understand the weight of history in Russia against the creation of an open society, of the acceptance of others as equal before the law. The tyranny of the primacy of Moscow is an almost axiomatic mental construct which has dominated Russian life and literature. But things can change. The destruction of the Russian state would be a chaotic result which could be a disaster for the world with loose nukes. The creation of a true federation would be best. However, the internal resentments may make such an outcome a chimera, a wistful illusion. Probably the historical inertia is just too great for any more hopeful future. Instead, Russia will continue on it's path towards isolation, authoritarianism and dictatorship. Sad, sad that so many people in Russia live in such mental straightjackets and can not progress into a more enlightened future of acceptance of others who have different dreams and goals.
One of the reasons this system works so well is that bigger problems that effects the entire country can be kicked up and problems that effect regions, states or cities can be kicked down to people with better information to handle it. A New York businessman has no place telling an Arkansas farmer what to do and vice versa.
@@kazekamiha Precisely, practically no American, can conceive of their country under the sole authority of a single individual from any one region. The variety of the country is so diverse from some of the largest cities in the world to Southern swamps and bayous to evergreen forests of Seattle. Since America by necessity evolved having such diversity it has had a major influence in creating institutions like NATO which has such a diversity of different countries from France to Turkey. In essence NATO reflects the federal system of the United States. It would be difficult to conceive of it without that structure. It would not work if it was just dictated by America. Putin cannot understand that simple reality or appreciate human diversity( He cannot accept the difference between a Ukrainian and a Russian). NATO is fundamentally an alien system for him and there lies part of the problem.
Ofc a Lebanese would think of nationality as the realm of a city-state max, and its all about trade, but he forgets Rome vs Carthage. And the power of romanization. And that most underdeveloped and poor countries in the world are descentralized.
It is kinda ironic that the largest country in the world with so much land and so many resources with so far people and a population that can't even keep it's numbers up thinks that it needs to get bigger and to add people by making them completely hate it thinks it needs more land. It could be like Australia and Canada and building itself up and just trying to get enough people to come so that it can use and enjoy what it does have.
First Yugoslavia was a stupid invent post WWI with any rational basis. Second, this invent become a disaster because ultranationalist and chauvinist serbs can not accept the willing of self-government of the other nations inside Yugoslavia
If even decentralization leads to collapse, then that what should happen. Yugoslavia had so many internal conflicts, that it could not operate as a single state without repressions
Amazing video 👍 Dude your perception of the world, the figures you quote and the awesome review, are perfect. You studied foreing affairs? For some years i beleived the only way to end Rússia threat to Europe was to break it apart INTO smaller states. But that is to dangerous😅
I live in Germany and your line about American imperialism is so apropos. We don't intentionally export our culture. We don't care. It is them that care and intentionally import it. You could export all the hip hop albums we have but it wouldn't matter if Germans didn't want them.
Unsubscribed the channel , will resubscribe again when you make a video on why should california secede from the US and surpass India or Germany in economic terms. Russian provinces in siberia has maintained all their languages and culture beside russian, where no native american language or culture exists in the North america. Your video could have been a pre war propaganda before Hitler's barbarossa.
The Russian forces in Ukraine have been mainly drawn from the Russian hinterland and disproportionately from ethnic minorities within their borders while excluding urban European Russians. They have been excluding troops from its urban centers to hide their losses from the public because trains full of caskets in Moscow and St. Petersburg would be bad PR for the regime. This policy was also used during the Soviet-Afghan War to lessen the impact of that war on the urbanized proletariat and by extension the government and party members. If Russia chooses to fully mobilize for war there's no reason to believe that the majority of those conscripted into service wouldn't also be ethnic minorities so they can protect their core of urban European Russians. If they draw conscripts from their hinterland it's unlikely these sparsely populated areas would be able to find the numbers necessary to organize anti-war protests. Putin knows that too many of his troops are surrendering so he's calculated that if he attacks civilians he will scare his troops into believing that the Ukrainians won't take prisoners. Russia is also sending mobile cremation units to Ukraine so they can hide their losses. Because sending home trainloads of caskets is bad PR for Putin. If Putin has the bodies cremated in the field he can skip registering the dead and list them as missing or captured instead. Since no family wants to believe their sons have been KIA Putin gets to conceal his losses and hold on to his justification for the war in the short term and potentially threaten the families of the dead with reprisal if he lists them as captured. This is why the State Department is warning about concentration camps, mobile cremation units, genocide, biological warfare, and chemical warfare. So there's currently an opportunity for the frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Republics to reignite with the Russian military tied down in Ukraine. So far the former Soviet Republics have been playing a waiting game and anxiously watching the war in Ukraine hoping to exploit a Russian defeat. However, if they wait too long they risk a full Russian mobilization and the Russian military being able to redeploy its forces from that front to reopen these frozen conflicts. They may not have as good an opportunity as they have now.
Russia has to accept the concept of 'right to self determination' of the nations, and drop the false narrative of the 'expanding NATO'. People choose to go with the West(in Europe at least), and forced to go with Russia. No exception.
Last month, the Solomon islands decided to go with China and allow China to established bases in their land, but where threathened by US. The West does not equate with US foreign policy.
@@simongraham2516 china made a lot more enemies then the mere USA, there is Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan...etc... the list of enemies China made is endless and half of them aren't even allies with the USA, they just hate China period.
@@simongraham2516 chinafication of the pacific is not good. neither was japanification. (neither was germanification of europe, neither is russification of ukraine).
@@garygraham8373 I am 100% against Russifiation of Ukraine. Russia needs to withdraw immediately from all parts of Ukraine and let them choose. I can say that and at the say time that US foreigh policy is disgusting and needs to be thrown out of Europe as well.
@@xaveircombs2690 Britain allowed the people of Hong Kong rights. They had access to the same courts that British citizens had access to - courts which by the late 1900's were far more just than China's and which still are. Hong Kong's people prospered under British rule compared to mainland China. They were better off under it, and would still be better off under it. Independence might be preferable but with China's will to dominate a western protectorate, perhaps America's, would be the best option.
It's rich that this author accuses Realists of being blind to the nuances of the world, and then DOES the SAME thing. It's kind of nonsensical to take this guy at his word. His comments on American cultural imperialism not being real is laughable; McDonalds is where it is BECAUSE of the US government, not in spite of it. To pretend every country can embrace the same model ignores cultural, political, and even psychological nuances. And it even ignores long term issues within the Western bloc that Russia has temporarily glossed over.
I remember in Soviet times, many Russians called their country “ a prison of nations” Russia, definetely, inherited this title. Fall of Russia will allows tens of nationatilities to learn their own language, show the world their culture, and find their identity as a free nation.
You are lying nobody has ever siad such a thing and those little nation already enjoy a great amoint of autonomy. Also for many many reason they will not be able to exist alone its just facts.
@@Silver_Prussian Google, man) Lenin said that Russia is a prison of nations. Any examples of "enjoy a great amount of autonomy?' Chechnya? With a bandit/terrorist as a republic leader?
@@dshrp4694 lenin was an idiot who worshiped another idiot with abeard who created a dumb economic and social theory wich to this day is criticised and not used, he killed a russian state with culture, spirituality and strenght that was hundred of years old.
A Russian collapse may be beneficial for its people in the long term, but in the short term the chaos would be terrible for them. Not to mention the possibility that their nuclear arsenal will no longer be under centralized control, and those weapons could end up being seized by breakaway military factions or worse.
the US does not actually want Russia to collapse, and if it did NATO would probably have to invade to secure the nuclear facilities. that would be a huge drain and definitely something nobody wants to do.
Do u realise that videos like this will be used to show Russian people that westerners indeed want to destroy Russia? Dismemberment of Russia is the thing almost no one desires in Russia regardless of ethnicity or religion. Thalib’s analysis Is definitely interesting but he fails to understand Russian society and history and he discusses it through lenses of European/American history. Which is not entirely wrong but too biased to be helpful at least for Russians to understand their current situation and their fate.
Very interesting view on russia. Only problem is that western rulers tend to centralise power too (ie. Brussels ignoring Treaties whenever they're inconvinient).
