Will Russia Break Up? | Are Russia and China Really Allies | Channel Q&A | June 2023 

Yes, Russia will break up. I guarantee it, and am actively and rightly working on exactly that objective.

btw 1917 2.0 whether you see it or not it's inbound.

You haven't done a video on the international community's decision to not hold Israel accountable for ongoing human rights violations yet.

Can you please do a video on the 70th anniversary of the first successful Mount Everest climb? Are you planning on doing a video on the current protests in Senegal?

" Saddam Putsein the Great Loser" is rapidly sending Muscovy back to 15c.

Thank you so much Todd. It really is appreciated. Have a great weekend too! :-)

@@saccount-z3 Yes but they aren’t going to leave now. At least in many places we are seeing more indigenous culture being included in national stories and identity.

@@saccount-z3 No not for power for living life without being deported back to england. 2 wrongs dont make a right

who tf asked???

who tf asked???

@@fab7423 WTF

Good analogy and spot on with the slippery slope. Considering some of the steps El Salvador president took on the media and considering what we have seen in lots of Latin America, I really do think he's going to continue further with his authoritarianism. Too early too say with confidence but I just don't have a good feeling about the situation in the long run.

Thanks so much. Excellent analogy, especially with the caveat you raised in the case of authoritarianism.

@@Shineon83 The issue being raised is whether or not the president will roll back the authoritarian steps or even just maintain it at the same level...or if he will continue to more authoritarian measures and possibly become a quasi dictator which is not uncommon in Latin America. There are a lot of polices enacted by the president that could have been done with less authoritarian measures but he still proceed with them. This is what is troubling me and others.

this, personally i’m glad that the crackdown is taking many criminals out of society and many El Salvadorans seem to both relieved and supportive of the measures. but some of the collateral damage i’m hearing about - eg false detainment (though extent of this is unclear) is worrying, and Bukele is definitely leaning into the personalist wave. to say nothing about the precedent of harsh measures and changes to law that are currently being set… it’s definitely enough to make one uneasy.

@@saint-miscreant Human rights are not only for criminals but also for the many wrongfully detained or wrongfully convicted people. All those that support Bukele's human rights violations just don't care about all the possible innocent people being caught up.

Thank, Mitch. Great topic. I’ve marked it down.

Because they are. That’s why I chose them. :-)

@@JamesKerLindsay I’ll drink to that!

Hi Elizabeth, thanks so much. I really love doing these videos. :-) And I completely agree about Boris Johnson!

Indeed Boris does. But i dare say that's there's quite a few Brexiteers who share responsibility für the debacle. Starting with David Cameron... I always like to remind people in Britain that Client Attlee made an excellent case against binding referendums when he was PM. I'm not sure when Parliament turned its back on that old view.

who tf asked???

@@fab7423 WTF

who tf asked???

Thanks so much. I really love making these videos. They feel much more like ‘me’. 😊

Thanks so much Thomas. Yes, it’s especially busy at the moment! :-) But I love working on the channel and the really great conversations that so often come from the videos.

I haven't heard anything about the UK rejoining from any EU official, and they do harp on about the admission of the Western Balkans, a region with a smaller economy and fewer people than the UK. As troublesome the Balkans are, you can trust them to not suddenly leave everything and exit the union (if they ever do get inside) as their economic interest is evident to all, including themselves. With the UK, well they only know what they thought would happen. Their rejoining seems to be far from any current agenda of the EU.

Comments like this always assume the UK is desperate to rejoin. There is very little will to go through another round of multi-year negotiations and culture wars. Most people in the UK have accepted that this is the new normal and life goes on, even with certain annoyances.

BREXIT is here to stay, get used to it, people can retire abroad they just got to go through the paperwork etc., Europe is seeking to punish us for leaving the EU and that will backfire on them, they are already a dwindling cartel in world economies. We have not made a mistake, and Labour will not "win" the next election. The biggest crisis we have faced since WW2 was EU countries being reliant on Russian Energy and crashing the whole energy market, so more independence is required, not less. When we were in the EU we were voted down by Germany and France and treated as third class if we go seeking going that shower of crap they will treat as fourth class citizens. By 2030-2035 we will be the biggest economy in Europe anyway and then BREXIT is not working will be totally irrelevant!?!

@@anglaismoyen No

@@JumboGaming001 Yes. The UK would have to adopt the Euro and Schengen which would be totally unacceptable even to UK Europhiles.

​@@xunqianbaidu6917 Why not? Half of America's problems was due to Wilson...

Thanks so much, Thomas. I love doing these videos. I’ve always said they are much more ‘me’. The problem is that I have to be very precise on my weekly videos, especially given the topics I cover. One wrong date or unfortunate expression brings down a hail of abuse! :-) This means they have to be heavily scripted. But you’re right. These videos don’t tend to do as well as my usual videos. Still, it’s a great chance to interact with regular channel viewers. I actually keep planning to do some live-streaming at some point. I just need to find the time to get it set up.

@@JamesKerLindsayis Hong Kong the new East Berlin?

Thanks so much Michael. Really glad you are enjoying WPR. It really is excellent.

Thanks so much, Tommy. Great point. Yugoslavia is a really interesting example. In that case, the question of secession was complicated by the fact that the 1974 Constitution was vague on how the right if self-determination should be understood. Was it the nations or was it the nations within the national republics? While four of the other republics saw it in terms of the former, Serbia interpreted it in the latter form - hence the wars. (Montenegro was in a bit of a strange position.)

Thank you so much! :-)

who tf asked???

Thank you. So glad you found the channel. A very warm welcome! :-) Great question. There are obviously many good introductory books on International Relations that can guide you in the right direction. Here is a good article that should give you a quick background and sets out the main texts www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-theory/ I completely agree with you about realism, especially the more hard nosed end of the realist spectrum. I wouldn’t set much store by Mearsheimer. But he has his legions of fans.

@@JamesKerLindsay thanks for the swift reply, I'll look into it as soon as I can 🙂

​@@JamesKerLindsay thanks, that was a concise and great read! I must say, in many ways, it reminds me of neoclassical economics, in the sense that it is the basis for all study of economics, even if we know that it is very far from flawless. Basically, you can only apply the neoclassical tools in your toolbox, when the assumptions are valid. When assumptions are questionable, you need to dig deeper in the toolbox. Or just skip the issue at hand and focus on something else, which is, unfortunately, a popular strategy among may economists. When it comes to Mearsheimer, my impression is that he doesn't really question his assumptions, even if he is careful to clarify them, and whenever he misses, it's attributed to "miscalculation" on one or more parties to the conflict or issue at hand. I kind of like Mearsheimer for being so honest about his assumptions, however, I consider his unwillingness to question them seriously as less impressive. Sometimes they will hold, sometimes they will not, and the theory is not very useful if you have no idea when it is one and when it is the other. Now, on to some questions that ultimately will arise when different disciplines meet, like this quote: "Realists are also accused of focusing too much on the state as a solid unit, ultimately overlooking other actors and forces within the state and also ignoring international issues not directly connected to the survival of the state. For example, the Cold War ended because ordinary citizens in Soviet-controlled nations in Eastern Europe decided to rebel against existing power structures." Now, I intuitively agree with the first sentence, it makes sense from where I am coming from. However, the second sentence, doesn't really. The way I interpret it, it's not like the masses suddenly decided to rebel against existing power structures. Rather, to me, what happened looks more like a classic example of what happens when conditions for the elite coalition changes, and parts of the elites breaks with the coalition. A process that can only happen in what I would term "Limited Access Orders" or "Extractive Insitutions", in the words of North, Wallis and Weingast, or Acemoglu and Robinson respectively. Such a process can, of course, lead to institutional changes in the sense that society moves on from "Limited Access Order" or "Extractive Institutions" to what is termed an "Open Access Order" or "Inclusive Institutions", and that will require ordinary citizens to rebel against existing power structures. However, that is far from a given, and, more often than not, it doesn't succeed. After some period of instability, often with considerable amounts of violence, a new elite coalition is formed, and nothing may have changed for ordinary citizens. We may call this process something like "elite rebalancing", not too dissimilar to what realism would predict between states. Now, why does an elite coalition break up and lead to turbulence or outright civil war? See, that's the interesting question, and the kind of tool I would expect realists to have in their toolbox when assessing their assumptions. For economists, the world is not static. In particular, the industrial world is not static, rather the opposite, it needs constant change in order to fuel growth, and without growth, it will collapse (there are various explanations for this, I prefer to use game theory, however, the important thing here is empirical evidence). Furthermore, an industrial society can not persist within the limits of a "Limited Access Order" or "Extractive Institutions", because they are static in nature. A society trying to industrialize without reforming it's institutions, may be caught up in the middle-income trap, which will stifle further growth, and create resentment because there will be less growth to share. In turn, the elite coalition may break apart, and the regular people may riot. This is a breaking point, in my understanding, where states like Russia, then and now, culminates and where preserving the elite coalition and regime stability trumps foreign policy and national security. Neither foreign policy nor national security matters much for elites who risk being placed under the guillotine, hung in the nearest light-post, or pulled out from a gutter and executed live on youtube. Now, in my opinion, the Soviet Union found itself caught in the middle-income trap for quite some time, and it should have been predictable that the elite coalition would break, and the Union collapse. Today, I believe, we see the same process repeating itself in Russia, and we see countries like China may be reaching the same point in the foreseeable future. Xi Jinping has already said very clearly that China now need to sacrifice growth for regime stability and international fame. Clearly indicating that he is well aware of the fact that China is about to get stuck in the middle-income trap, that he has no solution for the mounting demographic pressure on the society, and that this will put pressure on both the social contract between the elites end the people, and also on the elite coalition itself. Will the Chinese people stand up and demand change? I have no idea, however, unless the elite coalition that currently rules China show signs of breaking up, it won't matter much. China is by no means a "Open Access Order" or has "Inclusive Institutions", hence, elite coalition break up is a real possibility. The results, however, can be catastrophic. If we go back to the article, it states that: "If a state attempts to push its luck and grow too much, like Nazi Germany in the 1930s, it will trigger a war because other states will form an alliance to try to defeat it - that is, restore a balance." This makes me think of a process where "pushing your luck" and trying to keep the elite coalition together, by expanding a sphere of influence in which elites can extract rents, appears to fit pretty neatly into the notion of "...push its luck and grow too much...". If this sounds like imperialism, I think that is exactly what it is. Building an empire where more rents can be extracted from more people over a wider area - you may call it a colony or a sphere of influence, or an empire - seems to be a viable strategy to preserve elite stability and drawing up a new social contract between the elites and the people. It is also aggressive, of course, and will create war. Well, at least, these are some thoughts. Probably not very original, however, this is a topic that has been of some interest over the past year, and I look forward to explore the additional links for some further insights :) And, one last thing: I do not believe war is inevitable. Firstly, because the evolution of "Open Access Orders" and "Inclusive Institutions" solved the problem of elite infighting and endless "rebalancing" of elite coalitions within what was to become industrial nation-states. So, at the nation-state level, a rules-based order is possible and solves the problem of violence. Secondly, because the evolution of European institutions, has put an end to war in Europe - at least for the countries abiding by the main european institutional framework, i.e. the EU and NATO. As such, we have managed to create a European rules-based order as well. If you look at recorded European history - which span over millennia - that appears to be quite a feat. If Europe can, it's hope everywhere. But only rules-based orders can give real peace, and, yes, I consider realism "warmongering", because a realist international system must either be entirely static - which is incompatible with any country breaking out of the middle-income trap - or a system with constant "rebalancing", i.e. war is inevitable. Well, sorry for the lengthy response, perhaps I got a bit too enthusiastic, however, this was an exciting exercise, and much appreciated!

Thanks so much. I’m so glad you like them. I love making them. :-)

who tf asked???

@@fab7423 why be rude?

@@m.j.n.808 Bro Nobody cares 😬

@@fab7423 ok?

@@m.j.n.808 😌

Thanks so much James. Great suggestion. Another viewer also recommended Greenland. I’ve wanted to look at this for ages. I really should do a video on it.

who tf asked???

Thank you so much. I am so incredibly sorry I didn’t reply sooner. I have only just seen this. (RU-vid really is terrible at notifications.) That really was incredibly kind of you. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the support. And my sincerest apologies again for the delayed thank you. Very best regards, James

My pleasure. Really great question. It certainly made me think. :-)

Keep safe out there ❤

Hello there Matt. I am so sorry for the delayed reply. I was away and am now playing catch-up. I hope you didn't think I was rude for not replying sooner. Thanks so much for your kind support. That is great and really appreciated. A very warm welcome to the channel! :-)

Definitely

Me too! Great, isn’t it!? :-)

Thanks so much Maria! Really appreciated. :-) Great suggestion. This is one of those topics I’ve wanted to cover for ages.

Thanks so much Joe. I really would like to return to this subject.

Thanks. It really was a great question. As I said, I have been thinking of doing a video on this for ages. And you are absolutely right. The demographic changes are a huge issue that also makes a break up unlikely.

@@JamesKerLindsay a counter point to this is a possible gruesome string of events of disgruntled Russian minorities having their way with ethnic Russians as seen in Chechenya, Tannu Tuva, and many other areas that aren’t happy with their status within the Russian federation.

@@elscorpioperfecto3260 no where near disgruntled mexicos fentanyl having its way with usa

@@JamesKerLindsay​​⁠ There also seems to be a substantial amount of Soviet gerrymandering involved where many people belonging to sn ethnicity have been cut out of their titular republics which in turn have been lumped in with Russian communities. Hopefully in a disintegration scenario, reasonable new borders can be agreed upon fast before ethnic conflicts between these minorities breaks out.

Thanks. Great point. It is a rather special place. I say that with the deepest affection did the state. :-)

Most people just joke about it though. The vast majority of Texans are extremely nationally patriotic for the US as well.

@@lincolnlog5977 Uh, more like just obstinate rednecks who like a good fight.

because they are. the USA is a colonial empire like Russia

@@anuvisraa5786 of course they are.

Thanks Jordi. You are absolutely right. This is also extremely worrying. Taken with the talk about withdrawing from the ECHR and CoE, it presents a very disturbing picture of Britain’s future.

Thanks. So glad you liked it. It really is excellent. Great idea. I should really try to put some more suggestions together.

Thanks so much Dave. You are very right about the EU. It would certainly want to be sure that the UK wouldn’t try to withdraw again. It would also demand a full buy in next time. Euro, Schengen, etc. Personally, I always favoured that. Interestingly, and to use the comparison, imagine having Texas in the USA with a separate currency, continuing border checks, etc. Imagine how much more eager you’d be to see it go!? I hope you did get some sleep! :-)

Thanks so much Charl. I’m planning so do another one or two soon. :-)

Great question. There are always rogue states that work against the system. Even in the era when we talked of US hyperpower in the 1990s, some countries stood openly against it.

I hope you enjoy it!

@@JamesKerLindsay sure did, I've already left my feedback in a separate comment.

This is exactly why I don't see it happening any time soon. There's a deep disconnect between what the UK and many EU countries view as the end game for the EU. Even most pro-EU Brits were mainly pro-status quo (i.e. frictionless trade but our own currency and opt-outs), whereas many on the continental side were pushing for an ever closer union. Rejoining would probably mean losing opt-outs and would probably mean we'd be just along for the ride when it comes to further integration, which is politically unpalatable.

@@anglaismoyen Yeah, I don't think the EU would give the UK any special treatment if it asked to rejoin again. An Irish or Scottish sovereignty referendum would probably happen before one regarding the EU.

@@markdowding5737 I agree, and the fact that the EU would consider it "special treatment" whereas the UK would consider it "pragmatic compromise" is why the two sides are unreconcilable. Unless British society radically changes and everyone decides that the Euro, Schengen, etc and potentially future things like an EU military are all exactly what the UK needs. If one side wants to become more like a superstate and the other side likes free trade but likes maintaining a high level of sovereignty, where is the middle ground?

I can see the EU preferring a Norway style relationship, in which the UK rejoins the common market, Schengen zone, tarrif Union etc, but not be an official member and thus not have a seats in EU Commisarissy council, Council of Ministers, or the EU parlement

Thanks. I did make a video on Haiti a while back. Maybe I should revisit it. It is an amazing but tragic country.

Apologies, I’m new to your podcasts and I didn’t realise. Great stuff.

Thank you so much. I do hope that I can add a different perspective on things. And I love the sense of community discussion that often emerges in the comments section. I learn so much from this.

Cheers! You too. :-)

What independence movement? Putin has literally 70-80% popularity. His lowest was 65%. This is unprecedented in Western world. Listen to Biden and Putin and them try to guess why bIden has 30. How do you imagine ‘ insurgency’ when 70% not only support but speaks with such a proud of him. I recently saw a video of Crimea from NBC ( same that Ukriane added this hournalist to their kill list for this report) and aome Tartar was saying that he will protect Crimea from Ukraine and they have their commander Putin and he spoke with such a pride. What would happen if groups that are supported by 2-10% of population try to overthrow a leader with 70%? Do you really need an analysis for this? West spent billions for anti Putin activists within Russia for 2 decades.

Thanks so much Andrew! I always really enjoy making these videos. :-)

Nationalism is still strong in many parts of the EU, hell a number of states have regions with separatist movements that want to become their own. The EU, properly, understood, is 27 governments having made legal agreements between themself and in order to execute them hiring a number of civil servants led by 27 supreme civil servants called commissioners. Federalization is becoming 1 state, and most states currently are formed along ethnic-linguistic lines. The EU completely lacks a single unified language. I can see the EU coming closer together using the current framework. I can potentially see something like a confederation as further integration without our lifetime. But federalization? I personally don’t see that happening in the next 50 years, because the lack of a unified language, strong national cultures, and a strong sense of identity and national history that the current member states share

Hi Maria, Thank you so much. I am so incredibly sorry I didn’t reply sooner. I have only just seen this. (RU-vid really is terrible at notifications.) That really was incredibly kind of you. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the support. And my sincerest apologies again for the delayed thank you. Very best regards, James

@@JamesKerLindsay Please don’t be sorry! I love your channel. Thank you, Professor.

@mariavm9178 Thank you so much for such a gracious reply Maria. :-) I hope all is well at your end.

A BRICS currency is unlikely, trade in yuan is easier but worse for Brazil. I think Brazil will take the easier path and end up just using the yuan when the usd isn't available, but it's good to see if a common currency can be done because it's a better alternative than the yuan long term

So much of the current discussion is in the context of war, both current and looming. The prospect of China and India agreeing to a common currency, or even a currency Union, is difficult to imagine.

My undering is that both currency will be used. For example, Russia buy more from China, rmb will be used because, Russia can spend all of it. if Russia running low on rmb. They can use Ruble. India bought a huge a mount of Russian oil with indian rupee, but Russia don't import that much from india, they got no where to spend those rupee. in China Brazil, China buying more from Brazil, so there should be no problem using Brazillian Real, because that can be used buying brazilian goods. at the end of the day, it is the goods will be exchanged, dispite which currency are using.

Hi there! It seems we’re all in the dark about this. I’m seeing a lot more speculation than confirmed facts. It’s one of those watch and wait situations. But I’m also intrigued to see where this is going!

@@JamesKerLindsay it's been and odd 24 hours that's for sure.

Thanks so much Nathan. :-)

Thanks Paul. Yes, I can’t resist the Brexit questions. I know it is divisive (although increasingly less do as people see what a disaster it has been), but I have always felt strongly about it. And I want people outside of the U.K. to know that many people in Britain always thought it was a terrible decision and would have hugely negative effects. I don’t think the UK will be given special terms if it seeks to rejoin. Nor should it. The terms are acceptable to 27 countries. Why not Britain? I have always supported joining the euro. I think it makes a lot if sense and offers all sorts of practical advantages for travellers, businesses and consumers. The whole problem is that Britain saw itself as an exception, and the other members pandered to that. Next time round, and I hope there is a next time, we have to understand we aren’t so special. And after the effects of Brexit, which has made us poorer than many parts of the EU, we won’t be so special!

Thanks Daryl. Great question. :-)

As a Chinese, we all remember how imperial Russia grabbed the outer Manchuria and literally slaughtered all the people that used to live there. However, as time passed, these are no longer Chinese people living there. We have signed the border settlement, case closed. I don't think any chinese leader in their right mind will try to get outer manchuria, because it would be impossible to govern it. China react every differently is because the power balance had changed, They are no longer a threat like the USSR once was.

@commie5211 China could easily re-populate Outer Manchuria just by sheer numbers. And as we've seen in Xinjiang, I doubt Xi would consider anything ungovernable. Also, I wouldn't necessarily envisage taking the region by force but potentially through an agreement between Xi and Putin. Though Russia obviously would not give up Vladivostok easily.

@@allyeneedislove No, China can't even populate Manchuria, those regions are losing population since the 2000s. look how many empty towns in heilong jiang province. XinJiang was populated during Mao's time, you can't do that now, It will cost more than it gains. for China, even in imperial time, there is a common understanding, you don't grab land you can't effectively govern. you creates vessel states in those cases, like Korean and Vietnam.......

@@allyeneedislove Actually there are lost of misunderstanding on the outer Manchuria issue by the west. The initial Xinjiang and Mongolia independence all funded and supported by the imperial Russia and continued by the USS. Mao knows he can't engage Russia on the west front due to logistics. His territorial calm was to shift Russia's attention to the far east. They sucked on history too, Uyghurs are not Turks, they were slaved by the kok Turk, they allied with han dynasty and chased the kok turks off the map. calling it east Turkestan is such a disgrace.

Thanks. Great question. I would put it in a separate category alongside the UK. It doesn’t formally have the ability to secede written into the constitution, but it dies leave the option open in some circumstances. It is rather more codified than the U.K., which essentially leaves it up to the government of the day to make a political decision.

Crimean conflict did not start with invasion of Russia. There was No invasion. Russian troops stationed in Sevastopol 200 years longer Than Ukraine has existed. Crimea is and was an autonomous region. Western backed coup where mob stormed governement buildings and chose unconstitutional leaders caused desintegration in Ukraine. Countrer protests were in Odessa Kherson Donbas and Crimea . People also did same in their regions as was done in Kiev and demanded to be out. Crimea was an autonomy and chose the path of voting which is a triumpj of democratcy. Ukraine rejected it as suddenly the constitution was sacred. But not when you remove a president that was 70-90% supooorted in East and Crimea.

Russia is a federation. It is a country of almost 200 minorities, 20 million Muslims, a lot of refugees from Asia, 5 mln ukrainins now who fled now or during Ukrainian civil warZ country where Christian’s orthodox Muslims Jews all live in relative peace. They suffered from terrorism but dealt with this. They implemented laws that block certain groups and hatred from white supremacy groups that pose a danger. It is not easy to rule a country like that. Lola what happens in France or Sweden. US has many states and local laws but they still have 400 mass shouting as yearly people go crazy. Russian is also not really a nationality it is an identity. A person says first they are Russian then they minority then that they are Muslims. It is a bit like being Jewish. Actually I think it is a concept not very much covered i the media. I lived around a lot of ‘ Russians’ when I asked where in Russia they were born they told me cities in Latvia Ukraine Lithuania or Belarus. I got very confused especially that their parents were not even born in Russia. I still do not get it but they got very upset when I said you are kot really Russian. Maybe there is some word in English vocabulary missing for this. I come from a country that if you leave and have children there they become citizens of this country. So it was bizarre for me. But maybe Russian is a bit like Jews when it comes to identity. I don’t know.

Great question! I really want to look into this.

@@JamesKerLindsay absoultna

@@JamesKerLindsayI think as economies start using less petroleum that the incentive for Norway to join the EU will grow as-well