I fully agree, Alexander. Two points I'd like to add: #1 The Global West comprises of plenty of countries that aren't former colonial powers. They have grown more influential since the end of the Cold War. I'm fine with Finland carrying some of that baggage by association, but Ukraine really shouldn't. Ukraine is one of the most tragic victims of European imperialism, brutal occupations, and internal colonization. I really want to see them liberated once and for all. For countries like Ukraine or Finland or the Baltic states, this really is about values. Not world domination. #2 Why are values so important to western nations like us? Because values govern actions. When you, as an individual, have grown accustomed to having human rights and dignity, you do not want to give them up. You fight for them like Ukrainians do. That's what the Russian World or the autocratic world in general is to me: a world without human rights and dignity.
Where was BBC & other News outlets when Western Ukraine was bombing Eastern Ukraine citizens for 8 years since the CIA COUP in 2014? The pictures then of the Donbas area and other areas of Eastern Ukraine between 2014 & 2022 are little different from these from Western Ukraine bombing their own Russian Speaking citizens. Western Ukraine has lost their right to govern Eastern Ukraine. Seek Peace. Grant Independent Country Status to Eastern Ukraine States protected by Russia until they are fully established countries.
Oh shut up neoliberal midwit. Liberalism has no values, that's why it is degenerating and self-destroying at such a rapid rate, and you globalists will fall like the atheist ideologues you are, barely literate brutes with no knowledge of history. You don't know what truth is, what knowledge is, or what values are. How dare you speak about values? The only thing you value is second-hand Enlightenment rationalism. So don't speak about "imperialism" as a bad thing when you are trying to impose your one-world-government on everyone else, hypocrite. I much prefer an autocracy to a kleptocracy of oligarchs masquerading as a democracy. You are just a mindless dog for a corrupt elite and you will get what you deserve.
I don't know if values really do govern action, if that were the case, we'd all have solved climate change by now, but also different people have different values. If we try to focus on values, those values may undermine the very foundations of dignity and order. I mean how does the USA deal with abortion when the values are bodily autonomy and murder is wrong. Like there's no way to reconcile these two positions. In contrast Argentina and Mexico have been able to solve the issues of abortion just fine without these big cultural debates that seem to consume US politics.
Thank you for this explanation, professor. My main observation of this video series is that you frequently do not mention Canada’s contributions, both as a NATO ally and a stalwart transatlantic advocate in your discussions of “Transatlantic relations”. In the context of support for Ukraine, Canada is the fourth largest contributor of aid, the sixth largest contributor to NATO, and has actively contributed to shaping the Liberal International order post Second World War.
If you want a laugh along the ignore-Canada line, Money and Macro created a map of R-U alliances and omitted Canada from the "US Allies" category. On the bright side, Canada was also omitted from the Allies of Pootistan category.
Prof. Stubb, I am following your geopolitics series from the very beginning and must say my humble opinion this one is my favorite by all means. This a very simple and pragmatic approach to the present situation in the World, fully agree with all your points and conclusions, especially about how a lot of valuable countries around the world sit tide and wait for how things will happen in the future and of course outlook of the same which would certainly form a new world order. Hopefully for sake of all the people on our beautiful planet will benefit all of us small or big once and for all. Excellent presentation by your side Prof. Stubb as always. Greetings from Croatia 🇭🇷.
Thank you. I had to watch this a couple of times to grasp the depth of what you were saying. My comment is, I fully agree on the pendulum theory, and although the third power isn't a cohesive one being from several continents with different cultures, climates and needs, that will be the next "battleground". By that I mean a battle to be the preferred partner of each individual country, and try to move as many as possible into each of the two main factions. I may be wrong, but I think the next era will be the battle between the east and the west for the loyalty of the south. Thank you professor, you made me think and I learned a lot.
succinctly put. Alex. One word could describe the direction needed. Respect. Whoever shows the global south this, will succeed. It’s almost unfortunate that we have to realise this via a war, however throughout history it’s often the lack of respect and ego that has been the undoing of many. All countries I feel have been guilty of this at some point. I hope from all this pain comes a new found respect for others.
The now called “ Global South” and their supposed “ dealing with Climate Change “ (as an example) and the Green Agenda (that has worked so well as Germany had shown us and continues to do so); which effects to the whole world weren’t caused by them to start with; will attach their development to what is dictated mainly by Europe ( look at the ins and outs of the drama of a signing of a “ free trade agreement “ between Europe/ Mercosur) limiting their possibilities of getting rid of poverty and corruption ( the corruption that sometimes happen to occur even in the very well established and rich Democracies of the Global North). So, if the Global North doesn’t change its perception of the Global South, tyrants of the like of Xi and Putin will continue to “hook up” people’s imagination, for lack of options. This war will change a lot, the world we were used to. We hope that Democracy and the Democratic Principles win, not by its ideals on paper and the “ do as I say and not what I do”; but by allowing ALL Counties that play by the rules ( International Law) with fairness and support and punishing hardly, in unison ( where is the UN? The “ new brain dead” to be resuscitated?) ,those that dare to disturb the prevailing order under which peace and prosperity must be accessible by ALL.
Thank you Alex. As a Canadian who lived in the global South for several years, westerners are generally oblivious to two significant points you observe: First, Collectivism. Socially, more cultures are collective than individualistic. The West tends to only see the negative side of collectivism like authoritarian rule, but it has many benefits like emphasis on family, communities, and sharing resources. Second, Colonialism. The West still acts with a colonial mindset when negotiating with the global south by imposing its values. Example, protecting the rights of the LGBTQ communities. My point is not about our western value to want to protect these rights, but rather, the pressure felt by leaders in the global south to “toe the line” or else they forfeit support, or other benefits. It is a kind of “moral colonialism” that does not respect the values of other cultures.
1. Many collectivist cultures shun family. Look at Russia - you're supposed to sacrifice your son to collective Russia. In Israeli Kibbutz the intention was for children to be raised communally and sever many family ties. 2. It's not moral colonialism, it's the fact that we constantly get burned when we deal with countries which do not respect rights. A country that does not respect rights can just as easily nationalize the industries we built and paid for and we lose our investment. You can easily see why we deal with Arab oil countries - we are responsible for their security. If we pull out and let them fend for themselves, they won't be able to secure their borders and resources. China and Russia may have a narrative where they won't enforce any so-called "moral colonialism" but that just means it's so much easy for investment money to go to waste.
I recall hearing St Kotkin saying that there are several treaties such as Nato Russia accord,Un Charter,Helsinki accord,Paris Accord,etc. They all have clauses saying all countries have absolute right to join any political or military alliance they choose. These accords were all signed by YELTSIN,PUTIN,MEDVEDEV. Medvedev also said that the war between Nato and Russia is over. Is this true?
Thank you for the perspectives that you outlined. In 1994 Russia recognized the internationally recognized borders of post Soviet Ukraine and in fact Russia guaranteed Ukraine's security (along with UK and USA) in exchange for removing all Soviet nuclear warheads from the Ukrainian territory. It appears to me that Mr. Putin is now becoming greedy and wants more from Ukraine under the guise of creating more strategic depth again potential NATO weapons (missiles). If we study the Russian history, we see Russia repeatedly using lame excuses for grabbing chunks of territories of weaker neighbors; today's Russian map is the evidence of the multi generational land grabs (example: in 19th century Russia grabbed 40% of Iranian territories....); so, Russia has a pattern of not caring about rules and laws.
I absolutely agree with youor comment. However, it s only part of the story. Together with the nuclair deal, Bill Clinton made a second deal with Russia that NATO would not expand to Eastern Europe countries. Bush drew a line to this deal and did expand NATO to the east. So yes, Russia is absolutely wrong by invading Ukraine, but it is also fair to say that NATO did also not keep to the agreement.
@@frithjofspeetjens2818 Interestingly the Clinton Archive contains the fact that Boris Yeltsin brought up this very question of non-Expansion to Clinton and Clinton gave zero assurances and zero guarantees. This of course aligns with Gorbachev's testimony that there was no such agreement and that the one Putin references is being taken totally out of context and references only East Germany (which Gorbachev says the West always complied with), and Boris Yeltsin went on to sign several foundational treaties such as the Nato Russia Founding Act, which like the Paris Charter Gorbachev signed, and the UN charter almost all Nations have aligned to, provides for no restrictions on the ability to built security coalitions such as Nato. These are the very reason Russia can have the CSTO. Not only that but Russia under Yeltsin helped clear up a border dispute with Latvia so that IT COULD join Nato. So no, the idea that there was some "agreement" from Nato is just a continuing myth.
@@frithjofspeetjens2818 Clinton never did anything of the kind, nor did Russia ever demand that. There was an unofficial agreement made that NATO would not expand east of Berlin into Germany *when it was part of the USSR*, which NATO obliged. That's it.
“Without Limits” is excellent branding for the global east - “you can work with us, do what you want, we won’t get in your way.” In essence they’ve reversed the perception of power vs what they experienced in colonialism.
Why are we saying that the Post Cold War period ended now? Russian beligerence outside of it's borders started in 2008. Russian beligerence in Ukraine started in 2014.
You were correct, of course. However, plenty of people decided to take a blind eye to Russian action in Georgia, and in Crimea. They saw what they wanted to see in those sweet, sweet Russian oil help them to turn a blind eye.
Sounds like a return to the Cold War where the Unaligned nations were heavily courted by both the West and the USSR. Have to say, that from what I've read and heard, the West really didn't particularly do a good job courting the Unaligned nation - rather it relied on Kissinger's Real Politics to prop up dictators that were willing to be "supportive" of the West rather than trying to really engage with and assume the Unaligned nations had agency as sovereign states. Hopefully the West has learned from history if we are moving back into a replay of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Thank you for the great analysis. In the context of the global North vs global "East", to what extent do entities like SCO and BRICS provide agency to its global South member/observer states?
History shows that democratic and liberal systems are less impacted by crisis. It is easier for them to change narrative and live longer that authoritarian systems. Also, global west collectively has more economic and intellectual power. I think future belongs to democratic and liberal systems. And if you take a look at what current authoritatian rulers say to their subjects (I’m judging by Russian speaking rulers), you realize, that they understand that subconsciously. They speak about past and preserving what system already have. They very rarely speak about future and goals for the future.
I have been out of school for about 5 years, and while I do enjoy my work and making money, I do miss learning. Thank you Mr. Prime Minister for freely enriching my life.
This was very insightful. The idea of how the Global South is very important. Trump's referring to the "sh**hole countries" was a huge win for the Global East. The Global West should step up their game with the Global South or risk losing their sway.
Hello Mr. Prime Minister, One of the metrics you did not use was that the 40-45 countries that sanctioned Russia represent the technologically advanced countries and the socially progressive countries and most importantly the wealthiest countries. I am sure we would love to have the other 150 or so countries act appropriately these are the nations can have the most impact. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you.
Thank you for your interesting videos. I think you are spot on. The "global west" needs to become more active in working with and convincing the "south" of the benefits of a global order to avoid (further) fragmentation. That requires an openness to move away from standard practice until now, and giving the south fairer participation in the global order and its institutions. Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as DG of WTO e.g. was a good step. Supporting the creation of a permanent UN Security Council seat for India (or in rotation with others from the "south" such as Brazil or South Africa) could be another step. And of course intensifying mutually beneficial cooperation on many levels.
The idea of writing a bare-bones international constitution that defines basic freedoms like freedom of information, movement, trade, independent judiciary, independent election review, etc has been bouncing around in my head. I also have been thinking about why the UN and such other international organizations have been pretty toothless and I'm beginning to think part of it may be the lack of a true physical, independent capitol. I suggest, due to its current level of devastation and general centrality to world population, that a new independent city-state be established in the area near the Syria/Turkey border in order to rebuild the area, establish peace, and give the world's democracies a neutral territory in which international governance can be practiced. I wonder if anyone else has had similar thoughts? I think it could be a good way to give the U.N./NATO/EU an upgrade and allow us to begin to integrate the global south while rebuilding an area that hasn't had peace since we (the West) created the borders. It would bring a lot of badly needed economic activity to the area and give the potential for a Kurdish state as part of the package. Ignoring the difficulties in establishing such a foothold in the area, I (someone way outside of their field of expertise) wonder if such a solution might be beneficial (if even possible).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World . thank you. I went off to read that. To my shame as a 50yo with A keen interest in geopolitics, I had no idea that this classification originated as a political one, from the Cold War. ..
Nice, Didn't really think about it like that and the Global South does have some pull. Now i do see it pulling east ward. But if the G.South is gravity how heavy is the gravitational pull.
Thank you very much for your lively and comprehensive discussion. As for Munich Security Conference, I tend to believe that the West or North as you mentioned,made a mistake not to invite Russia and or Iran. In fact Munich Security conference could have demonstrated a vivid signal that the Western countries are in the business of dialogue.
This talk was super dense, very interesting. Your 3-part power description reminds me of how politics is talked about in the US (and many other places), a spectrum with 3 parts.... extreme Left to extreme Right and the Moderates in between who take bits from both sides. It's a sliding scale, a continuum, rather than 3 truly separate parts. The Moderates always seem like the weakest faction because they lack the ferocious certainty of the two extremes. They appear ideologically soft and unprincipled but also more sane and measured.
It's hardly the end of an era. It's a continuation or perhaps a marker in the evolving story of 1. the absolute almost complete victory of market capitalism with its implications for private property rights, a limit on overriding statist capitalism, and its lasting implications about the allied concepts of equality and representative rights. It all leads to "liberalism", which is the great fear in pseudo-autocratic systems such as China, or Russia. It wasn't communism that propelled China into economic or international success.... 2. great power competition, with almost everything being a footnote to the ongoing China-US confrontation. China was at Munich mainly to present itself as a power capable of influencing decisively the Russia-Ukraine War. It was there to show it could protect Russia. But it's a hard slog for China, because Russia is faltering, and with this slide it's being exposed as a not-so-major power. 3. this great power competition also is revealing the latent power of the EU/NATO combination ability to exert real influence. The EU -- because of this conflict in Ukraine -- has found new legs. It's shed its dependence on Russia O&G. In fact, the EU is competing directly with Russia for Ukraine. This is a complete turn-around from the German-led compliant attitude to Putin. This is a new chapter in intra-EU relations, and can only lead to more integration and political single-mindedness. It won't brook China trying to dictate the affairs in Ukraine. 4. On sanctioning Russia: yes, it's only just over 40 countries (20% of countries), but they represent over 50% of global GDP. In other words, either as importers or exporters of raw materials or technology, respectively, they have the wherewithal to seriously affect Russia's economy. They are also the major investors in Russia, so capital is denied to Russia. This is not the same story for a country such as Brazil, which has a limited relationship to Russia in importing some commodities and exporting others. Or S. Africa, or Indonesia. India is a case apart, because Russia plays a balancing force v.a.v. China, India's major competitor. China is the case apart, because of its competition with the US. Russia is its only qualified "ally", so no surprise there. I don't see any significant story here about a rising Global South except perhaps the fact that the Liberal West will prove to be as transactional as Russia or China in the following decade.
I agree with your statements. To be blunt, I see the Global South having as much significance in the future as it had in the past - virtually none. The economies of the Global South have always been fragile and highly dependent on the West and this will not change. The economies of Russia and China are also heavily dependent on trade with the West. Russia is currently feeling the pain of sanctions which have been extremely effective. China if it has any sense, which is not guaranteed, will be watching Russian economic decline with a sense of foreboding. China would not be able to survive as a nation if subject to similar sanctions and would absolutely fragment. I view his notion of the world as only something useful to sell a book to us. He has come out with things in the past which have not impressed me. "I never understood Russia." coming from a Finnish Prime Minister reminded me of Obama - good at talking, but asleep at the wheel. To be fair he was a peace time leader I suppose, but I have higher expectations of statesmen. All the best. Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
Distinctive, comment-worthy , but I do hope not favourite; that would imply everything that follows is rather wasted on the listener ;) Yeah I get you're just using a figure of speech :)
Alex, can you recommend materials for me to establish a comprehensive understanding of geo-politics? Not sure where to start. I suppose reading a poli-sci 101 book is correct, but maybe you can share some guidance.
I listened to the official US Army War College and in one episode, officers stated a lot of countries that work with China/Russian militaries, said they prefer to work with the US military (because of their greater capability), but just can't because the US says oh these guys committed war crimes, we can't work with em. I don't think the officer was advocating for ignoring such concerns, but was open that these were contributing to US losing influence. He also said countries like France that are used to the region (they were talking about West Africa), they're a lot less picky and will cooperate with a lot of unsavory locals and that got em results.
Interesting thesis. However, how does one account for the demographic decline in China and Russia and the dwindling influence, power therein? (Social chaos is already bubbling up within these two.) As for the "South", well, they can't get their act together on their own internal issues much less with their immediate, regional neighbors. The classic liberal, Western order will carry the day. Need evidence? How many people are streaming across the borders of China and Russia seeking a better way of life? Excellent channel and thought provoking.
This has been your best video so far IMHO. As a brazilian educated abroad and who speaks other languages I am fully simpathetic for the cause of Ukraine and for the values of Democracy and of the western world, in general. Although, as a roman catholic I am of course much more conservative than many of present day westerners. In a way I am more of a westerner than most europeans, who have gone "woke" and reject the traditional values upon which western civilization an Democracy have been built. But the vast majority of the people of my country knows nothing about what is truely happening in Ukraine, China or Russia and sees no problem or danger in making deals with China. If Europe and the US alongside with Australia, Taiwan an Souths Korea an Japan want Democracy and free market do prevail they must work hard in cooperation and trade with countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and many others.
Greetings from Jacksonville Florida USA. I think that you need to explain why the Global West should care what the Global South decides to embrace. Because of their resources? Because they are potential competition? Because we just want to proselytize?
Hi Professor!...Your notion of a Triangle or Pendulum makes a lot of sense. I feel that from a realist perspective, the determinants for the global South will be based on economic incentives in terms of which regions they want to work with. With the U.S. post WWII maritime security order in decline, the West will need to offer more economic incentives than the East in order to win over the global South. Unfortunately, I do not think the West's liberal democratic institutions and sensibilities will be enough to sway emerging economies. That is, unless the West can show it has the economic upper hand in the coming decades against China. Looking at China's demographic problems, this very well might be possible.
One thing’s for sure during the interregnum (and beyond frankly). Expect much more overt realpolitik, even between allies. The middle powers will be the busy sites of diplomatic action and serve as the proverbial canaries. The global south will serve to muddy up any settled order; The only question is if that miscellaneous pole can be defined as a coherent one at all.
"In this struggle the question arises To the thinking man, What Power or what Powers are expressing their will Or their strivings in this upheaval? And we, what power or powers shall we serve? To what thing inward or superhuman, we owe allegiance? What or whom is it that we shall fight to enthrone?" Sri Aurobindo
I have to say that "Global West-South-East" is not a helpful concept. It is so abstract that is basically becomes meaningless. You could say India and Pakistan are parts of the "Global East" but that does not tell us anything of their unique situation. It is much more helpful to distinguish between levels of influence and competition. USA, China and EU have things they compete on, things they are opposed on and things they cooperate on. The challenge is to enhance the positive levels of these relationships and manage the dangerous levels. I also have to say that "democracies vs. autocracies" is a terrible, terrible idea. In the early moments of his administration Biden used Poland as an example of autocracy raising its head. Now Poland is a valued ally without changing anything about their domestic policies. Those kinds of high-level concepts become meaningless if you change your course of action on the short-term political benefits, as USA tends to do. We cannot think about international relationships on the abstract, emotional level of a history of ideas. Instead we need to look at the relationships between nations on the practical level and see if these ideas actually matter there. One theme of the proper dialogue we need to have is the reactive nature of American foreign policy. They go to a crisis, obsess for a time and then move one. We see this in their alienation from South America and Middle East in particular. Also, the underlying assumption in "democracies vs. autocracies" is the distribution of power. According to that concept, USA is the leading democracy so it follow we all need to follow them. And this becomes a stillborn idea, because US domestic policy is so profoundly dysfunctional and their foreign policy is so reactive and short-term. Last year USA goes behind France's back for the AUKUS submarine deal. Then they invite Macron for a state visit. Seeing Biden gush how USA and France have always stood together in the press conference while Macron stares in amazement was truly surreal. Then Biden has his looming "green subsidies" trade war with Europe. And just this week he goes to Poland for a press conference and literally says "We are helping Europe become free of fossil energy." It does not matter what ideas you represent if this is the practical everyday level of the relationships. One last thing I will say about Biden on the Ukraine War is the dangerous ambiguity of his position. He is not supporting West Europe when they talk of negotiations. Fair enough. But then he gives tremendous support to Eastern Europe, rhetorically and politically, without apparently realising the East has maximalist war aims. According to foreign correspondents, senior leadership in Ukraine sincerely believes USA has maximalist war aims: take back everything, including Crimea, dethrone Putin, permanently weaken Russia. But Biden has not specified that this is his long-term plan. It is a time bomb. Biden needs to take a clearly defined position and risk taking criticism for it, if he truly wants to be the leader of the free world. As Fiona Hill has remarked, we are seeing a whittling away of American leadership and we cannot know what this means for the international order. But this is not the consequence of ideas disagreeing. This is a consequence of chaotic leadership. Those in senior leadership positions will certainly look at this and more and have to ask the painful, painful question about the reliability of America on the world stage. Because now we are all waiting for the 2024 US election to see what our security looks like!
If only the world was consistent in condemnation of wars that we would be united behind condemning Russia. But the double standards applied is mind boggling and frankly hypocritical. That's how we view it in the global south.
This was an excellent and thought-provoking analysis, especially as to the role of the global south as the third party that could decide which way the new order goes. And yes, we Americans do get moralistic, and Europeans absolutely have to contend with their colonialist past and how the global south is still affected by it if they want to understand the global south's attitude towards the west.
Please note that Russia Federation also has colonial past but in Asia - not by sea but by land. Also there are European countries that simply have no colonial past. Not that simple, I am afraid :)
Welcome back and you were missed. Eager to pick up your book when it comes out. As an American in Ukraine, one of the big differences between life after 2021 and life after 2013 here in Ukraine (other than the obvious) is the crash course in global politics that Ukrainians have learned. Why more of the world isn't supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia perplexes many here. I point out to them, then, how much they followed crisis in Myanmar, Yemen, or Venezuela. Not that the Russian invasion isn't a lot less complicated that the Syrian civil war, for example, but if most of the world is starting out not knowing much of anything, it's hard to make sense of it through the propaganda. And that's not just propaganda by the Kremlin but also about the West from all corners of the world. One point of patience. When I worked on an infrastructure project in Venezuela in the 1990s, institutions like the World Bank was very cautious about lending irresponsibly because of the mediocre results in the 1980s and the associated bad press. China's infrastructure efforts will have similar effects elsewhere, and I think the Western Balkan peninsula is going to serve as one example where they suffer. We're even seeing this with Serbia (Serbia!), where nationalist rhetoric has quieted while the voice of pragmatism becomes more loud. The strength of the Global West is in the fidelity of the system, not in its promulgations. Sure the world will grow impatient with the lack of transfer it feels its experiencing under this paradigm, but I'm not sure we can account for all aspects of human nature, like impatience and partiality of perception. Afterall, what nation has been transformed more in the last thirty years of the post-Cold War period (rest its soul) than China? It has done so on trade with the Global West.
Very interesting view if the geopolitical pressures. One thing I don’t understand is how close really is China and Russia? Historically very wary of each other. Friendship without limits but China abstains in taking a side in Urkraine war. Seems limited to me.
A brilliant analysis. I think the key question if a global order is to survive is the extent to which countries are willing to relinquish or “pool “ sovereignty. The European Union and the WTO are more or less successful examples of supranational institutions, but they are increasingly under stress. The UK decided that it no longer wanted to pool its sovereignty with other European countries and the USA is increasingly unwilling to abide by WTO decisions (perhaps rightly in view of Chinese manipulation of some of the rules). As for China, there is little indication that it it can conceive of having to sacrifice any of its interests for the greater international good. So you may be right that only through the growing influence of the global south can China and (to a lesser extent) be restrained. On a slightly different topic, it would be great to see a debate between you and Jeffery Sachs on the question of culpablity for the Ukraine war. Sachs argues that it was NATO expansionist policies as well as the post Maidan governments’ repressive policies towards the Russophile populations of the Donbas region that precipitated the war or at least gave Putin the excuse he wanted. Sachs marshals some interesting and often neglected facts to argue that the war could have been avoided if the West had been more sensitive to Russian core interests and had pressured Ukraine to institute a more federal form of government that would have recognized the historical ties between Ukraine and Russia. At the moment there are two narratives about the war that do not intersect at all. One is that Russia is the aggressor without any justification and the other (Sachs and Mearsheimer) that it is all the West’s fault. I wonder whether the truth is not somewhere in between.
@@jdocean1 That of course is true, but unless we understand the causes of the conflict, there is no way to arrive at a viable and permanent peace. Wikipedia has some interesting information about the loyalties of the populations in eastern Ukraine. It seems that the majority was in favor of closer ties with Russia. I am sure that this was the case in Crimea. So it seems to me that the only viable solution is to recognize Crimea as part of Russia in exchange for the Donbas returning to Ukraine, followed by a UN sponsored referendum.
The Ukraine conflict is a European matter or rather a conflict between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine as the cannon fodder. The rest of the world are not concerned and are not involved in it. The Foreign Minister of India, Dr. Jaishankar, stated clearly that the Ukraine conflict doe not concern India. China, too, does not give a damn about the Ukraine conflict, nor do the ASEAN countries, the African countries and the Latin American countries.
I can tell that you are a very good and fair man Alex. What makes the world situation very hard to predict is when you add the lunatick element in the form of for example Hitler and Putin.
I don't think you can look at the Global South as a collective entity. For example, there are wide disparities in reactions to the Ukraine crisis among differing Global South countries. And in regards to colonialism, we need to be sure to point out Russia's colonialist and imperialist past in Ukraine in particular. I know a few Indians, and they were originally rather pro-Russian, because they have some lingering anti-Western resentments over colonialism and regard for the Soviet Union's history of supporting India. But once I talked to them about Ukraine's history with Russia and pointed out that when their Soviet backer fell apart, not one of the 15 non-Russian Soviet republics chose to remain in a post-Soviet state with Russia and what that said about being ruled from Moscow, they became much more sympathetic to Ukraine.
Thank You Alex for Your excellent analysies of the global world order problem today. Also a 'blind' watcher can see the scandal with the present United Nations, being unable to do anything to change the situation, unfortunately for the whole world.
It's been hijacked by the corrupt second/third-world delegates. These self-enriching leaders have no interest in serious changes for the better for their impoverished citizens.
In fact, it is the western world who has not followed the UN Charter for many great instances. For example NATO/European did not follow the UN Charter when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan under the false pretext and eventually tuned these countries into Stone Age. Do you think these are easily forgotten?
@@007nait how many times are ppl going to mindlessly state this without acknowledging what they were trying to accomplish. They couldn’t mk the changes they were looking for… and those involved the decision makers paid a price for their actions.
You specifically ask for comment so respectfully please see below. As a West European with children I have had to accept reality and adress our flaws. Better to embrace the bad news than try to deny it.
Over the past year, the most devastating wars have been caused by the West - from Iraq and Yemen to Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and beyond. Throughout these conflicts and invasions, I haven't seen you question the idea of global order. The concept of global order only seems to be raised now when Russia, from the Global East, invades Ukraine. When America and its allies invaded other countries, there was little discussion about global order. While it's important to have a world-based order, it must be applied universally. The ongoing war in Palestine, where millions are suffering, highlights the need to address situations where certain nations may not adhere to the global order.
Hello Alex, let me comment, I lived 30 years in a, maybe better under, as you call "authoritarian regime". An authoritarian, collectivist regime is not a regime, that would people living under its rule choose as their free choice. So my first personal rule is "no more". My observation and truly personal experience are, that peoples, when the situation is furthersome, will deal with the regime themselves. There is no difference between the dreams and idea of personal freedom among "western" peoples, Chinese, Russian, or South Africans. When the furthersome conditions prevail and whichever peoples start their journey towards freedom, "west" must be prepared to help, the situation after a change is vulnerable, and this is where "west made crucial mistakes in the '90s in Russia and after Maidan in Ukraine. This horrible war could be prevented, and the "west could have been much stronger against China today. So fully agreed, India (a Golem on clay feet), needs to be supported and kept on the western side, China step by step expelled from Africa (hard to deal the corrupt regimes).
Categorising a new era isn't important, but the point in time for significant changes to come is. "The West" is beginning to realise their perception was wrong, or is it just some in the West? ("Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall"). I like the picture of winning the hearts very much, let's do that!
I will be watching this dynamic more closely. I have worried for years about Chinas ways of “leasing equipment and financing infrastructure” to poorer countries. It will be a big part of this boiling point I fear in swinging the south east or west
Very interesting explication of the direction of the global order. The useful generalization I heard and that we all often use regarding East and West is that one focuses on individual rights and the other on the collective good. However, I feel that both focus primarily on the collective good. But it is the "new" wisdom of the West that you cannot ultimately maximize collective good without vigilantly safeguarding the individual good. Out of the lightness of my heart I use the example of Kirk and Spock. Spock died because he said "the good of the many outweighs the good of the one" . When Kirk risks the lives of everyone to recover Spock , and Spock asks why, Kirk says "because the good of the one outweighs the good of the many." The voice of the West if you will.
While you are not wrong with respect to the triad of power as you described, I would suggest that the most important way to influence the global south is economic investment. However, not necessarily funneled through the respective governments. Instead, I would suggest that small, personal, or business loans tied to initiatives to form distributed supply chains across the global south, would help build up the middle class and political classes of the global south. A strong middle class is the best antidote to authoritarian tendencies. Further competitive financing of infrastructure projects to support this global south supply chain (roads, bridges, ports,etc), tied to institutional reforms, (Financial accountability, independent judiciary, free press, democratic transparency) would go furthest in moving the global south to adopt Western order values. However, no effort should be made to impose Western social values. These will take care of themselves once people have the economic surplus to enjoy philosophical pursuits, the education to debate abstract ideas, and the hope to give their children a better life. By strengthening the middle class and their institutions, we can give them the tools to eventually join the global west economically, politically, and socially on their own.
I am not an expert in geopolitics, but having lived over 70 years in Latin America, as well as having worked in multinational companies locally and abroad, I dare say that this "new order" will not arise from any kind of influence from the "global south", since most of these countries act like as they were the kids of the block. I do not deny that a little bit of respect, cooperation and closer relations initiated by the developed West would help, mainly in the sense of improving their institutions. But the "global south" with its distorted and sometimes childish sense of pride, pretending to act as if they were the adults in the room, had better learn from their own experience, in practice and from the difficulties imposed by the developed world. No pain no gain. Most of these countries have been developing very slowly, like unbalanced trailers dragging behind the developed countries. And worse. When autocracies like China open up their taps to countries in the "global south", for example by buying massive amounts of commodities, they do not do any better in helping them, in any sense. To cite Brazil as a recent example, countries in the south continue to act recklessly by wasting easy-earned money and raising the level of corruption as much as they can. To make matters even worse, the autocracies that pour money into their hands don't mind playing this sort of indecent game. Under the bottom line I cannot see any artificially negotiated model of global cohexistence as underdeveloped countries will not respect rules they cannot understand in practice.
The west has no great unifying leader (needs one) to make a cohesive case using a transactional approach to offset the global east. I don't see the global east having longevity in a disrupted global order. We will see some regional stability centered on great powers, but global disorder will be the norm for a couple decades in my estimation.
Dear Alex, please read the China Foreign Ministry position paper; "US hegemony and its perils". It sets out exactly what is wrong with the Global West. I project the Global South will whole heartily agree. No amount of "dignified Foreign policy" as you propose is going to correct that. It is a derect challenge to the West.
Agree, there is stability in a tripartite division of global power. Consider one modelled on say past German voters political behaviour of 2 major parties differentiated by particular values/policies with a small 'centralist' party temporarily siding with one or other of the major parties. In this case the 'global south' would take on the role of 'centralist party'. NZ experience (since the 1990's) with the same political structure is that the 'centralist' party tends to be short lived coalitions of relatively marginal players, which is somewhat analogous to the countries of the 'global south'. However, this seems to require an explicit, particular and enforced structure to work successfully ie Germany's 5% of votes threshold for entry to Parliament. Witness the chaotic behaviour of the Israeli system with its lower threshold. This structure was imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWII as a top-down solution. It doesn't seem that it can easily emerge bottom-up as a form of world governance, given the failure of the UN to date. Any likelihood of the UN Security Council veto being changed to a majority decision?
If it is values , principles and orders why can't you cutt off trade ties with autocracies Liberal democracies- LGBTQ gender transformation woke ideological leftist order. Rules based order - Western rules roma empire order It's all about business , control , economy and hegemony etc
At least South America now has a very pro-Russia (and East) opinion that's not yet translated into actual diplomatic stance by fear of the West. This equilibrium is only a matter of time.
Alex, I think you could categorize the reaction of the Global South you need look no further than Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs! The Global South has h historically been in a perpetual state of Chaos especially with their leadership. With Maslow's hierarchy, the two first mandatory needs are safety and basic needs ie FOOD! Most of the Global South is always involved in some kind of war either civil, with another country, with gangs or crime in general, sex trafficking, drugs trade etc. Maslow states it is impossible to move on until one's levels are attained and only then can you move into areas that don't directly effect you. It is self-survival above all else. The War in Ukraine means nothing to them except 'where am I going to get food' because the grain shipments are being sabotaged by Russia yet that is too abstract for those starving.
Alex is this really a triangle? Take India for example: I have studied its position in the UN and listened carefully to recent remarks to the BBC by its foreign minister. I surmise that India is resolutely pro Russian with a thin veneer of neutrality to protect its trading reputation. It argues for moral equivalence of Ukraine/Russia, promotes spurious definitions of war crimes, and puts trade ahead of morality. I think it is time to wake up to this reality rather than taking the optimistic view of the swinging pendulum.
As someone from the Global South, I’d point out it’s not just about agency in the world order. Non alignment, in my point of view, has 2 main pillars: 1. The west is very much hypocrite on many accounts. NATO invaded Iraq, where Saddam was a bad guy sure, but it was against international law. And at the same time, where is International outrage and support for Yemen, for example? Stepping aside hypocrisy in war, the West approach on climate change is laughable… the West has put most of the artificial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and got rich doing so (and still has much higher per capita emissions) and destroyed pretty much all of their forests. But somehow think they have the moral high ground on climate change? This brings me to the second pillar: self interest. The global, rules based, order is very important to the West… except when there are vaccines to be distributed, or a run on natural gas after a war started. Europe averted its energy crunch, sure. But prices on energy are now crippling already poor countries. While French farmers are stopping the EU-Mercosul trade deal from happening (again, where are the French forests they can point to? The Amazon is still ~85% there, how much of the original Black Forest is still standing?), China is our largest trading partner. And Chinese trade is growing. And it lift people out from terrible poverty. At the same time, Europe still import oil and gas from Russia. And we are supposed to stop importing fertilizer that helps feed a billion people? I guess Westeners would just pay more for food while the South starves. In the end, most in the South quite agree with a liberal order and it’s principles. It’s just that they usually don’t apply to us as the West don’t remember we exist. So we are just acting like the West and trying to look out for ourselves.
I still think America should go FULL ISOLATIONIST ! Let China and Russia finish each other off. I’m tired of being blamed for everything and Washington DC thinks “too globally” and forgets there’s humans called Americans who need leadership BADLY!
Alex-I am very disappointed that since Putin's War began and we immediately saw the impotency of the UN, why aren't people in an uproar and doing everything in its power to make the changes it so desperately needs? The League of Nations showed its weakness glaingly during the Nanking Incident by the Japanese. Japan was roundly condemned but the League could do nothing BUT condemn it and Japan disagreed and just walked out and quit. When the UN was formed during WWII, it was supposed to have more teeth and be more meaningful. Well, this war showed that the UN doesn't have anymore teeth than the League had, maybe even less because Russia STILL sits on the Security Council as a permanent member which is laughable as it has thumbed its nose at every single UN principle! Something needs to be done and Russia should have immediately been thrown off the council and maybe out of the UN itself. I don't care if a precedent wasn't in the Charter, you somehow just do it especially after the proof of war crimes emerged in Bucha.
This all sounds like the cold war part 2. The USSR and NATO fought for influence in the global south by offering either benefits or harm. All either side really earned from the global south was resentment.
But now the global south position is we aren't on anyone side we will deal with you all equally according to what you offer to us and we won't take a side. And don't bring your attachments about democracy with your proposals
So the Global South has the following questions, “how do we deal with climate change? How do we deal with energy? How do we deal with trade? How about infrastructure? How about health? How about food security?” China and Russia are making most of these problems worse and if the Global South wants to play footsie with these two then they themselves are making the problems worse yet. It’s not going to be pretty once the citizens of the Global South wake up and see who has really benefitted (a new class of African and Latin American oligarchs, I predict). The West is getting played once again by pure power politics.
I think that it is a pritty shallow analysis, it is too simplyfied, and black and white in its spirit , and do not consider for instance technological trends, and demographic ones for instance, that will shift things radically, from that kind of development of events thet he "predicts"...
I fully agree, Alexander.
Two points I'd like to add:
#1 The Global West comprises of plenty of countries that aren't former colonial powers. They have grown more influential since the end of the Cold War.
I'm fine with Finland carrying some of that baggage by association, but Ukraine really shouldn't.
Ukraine is one of the most tragic victims of European imperialism, brutal occupations, and internal colonization. I really want to see them liberated once and for all.
For countries like Ukraine or Finland or the Baltic states, this really is about values. Not world domination.
#2 Why are values so important to western nations like us?
Because values govern actions.
When you, as an individual, have grown accustomed to having human rights and dignity, you do not want to give them up. You fight for them like Ukrainians do.
That's what the Russian World or the autocratic world in general is to me: a world without human rights and dignity.
Where was BBC & other News outlets when Western Ukraine was bombing Eastern Ukraine citizens for 8 years since the CIA COUP in 2014? The pictures then of the Donbas area and other areas of Eastern Ukraine between 2014 & 2022 are little different from these from Western Ukraine bombing their own Russian Speaking citizens. Western Ukraine has lost their right to govern Eastern Ukraine. Seek Peace. Grant Independent Country Status to Eastern Ukraine States protected by Russia until they are fully established countries.
Oh shut up neoliberal midwit. Liberalism has no values, that's why it is degenerating and self-destroying at such a rapid rate, and you globalists will fall like the atheist ideologues you are, barely literate brutes with no knowledge of history. You don't know what truth is, what knowledge is, or what values are. How dare you speak about values? The only thing you value is second-hand Enlightenment rationalism. So don't speak about "imperialism" as a bad thing when you are trying to impose your one-world-government on everyone else, hypocrite. I much prefer an autocracy to a kleptocracy of oligarchs masquerading as a democracy. You are just a mindless dog for a corrupt elite and you will get what you deserve.
I don't know if values really do govern action, if that were the case, we'd all have solved climate change by now, but also different people have different values. If we try to focus on values, those values may undermine the very foundations of dignity and order. I mean how does the USA deal with abortion when the values are bodily autonomy and murder is wrong. Like there's no way to reconcile these two positions. In contrast Argentina and Mexico have been able to solve the issues of abortion just fine without these big cultural debates that seem to consume US politics.
Thank you for this explanation, professor. My main observation of this video series is that you frequently do not mention Canada’s contributions, both as a NATO ally and a stalwart transatlantic advocate in your discussions of “Transatlantic relations”. In the context of support for Ukraine, Canada is the fourth largest contributor of aid, the sixth largest contributor to NATO, and has actively contributed to shaping the Liberal International order post Second World War.
I recon it's a valid point! Thanks... and shout out to Canada for it's effort and a contribution.
If you want a laugh along the ignore-Canada line, Money and Macro created a map of R-U alliances and omitted Canada from the "US Allies" category. On the bright side, Canada was also omitted from the Allies of Pootistan category.
Canada is and always preferred to be an hidden force behind USA for a reason.
@@thaiexpress7690 reason being?
Canada is a good boy.
Prof. Stubb, I am following your geopolitics series from the very beginning and must say my humble opinion this one is my favorite by all means. This a very simple and pragmatic approach to the present situation in the World, fully agree with all your points and conclusions, especially about how a lot of valuable countries around the world sit tide and wait for how things will happen in the future and of course outlook of the same which would certainly form a new world order. Hopefully for sake of all the people on our beautiful planet will benefit all of us small or big once and for all.
Excellent presentation by your side Prof. Stubb as always.
Greetings from Croatia 🇭🇷.
Thank you. I had to watch this a couple of times to grasp the depth of what you were saying. My comment is, I fully agree on the pendulum theory, and although the third power isn't a cohesive one being from several continents with different cultures, climates and needs, that will be the next "battleground". By that I mean a battle to be the preferred partner of each individual country, and try to move as many as possible into each of the two main factions. I may be wrong, but I think the next era will be the battle between the east and the west for the loyalty of the south. Thank you professor, you made me think and I learned a lot.
succinctly put. Alex. One word could describe the direction needed. Respect. Whoever shows the global south this, will succeed. It’s almost unfortunate that we have to realise this via a war, however throughout history it’s often the lack of respect and ego that has been the undoing of many. All countries I feel have been guilty of this at some point. I hope from all this pain comes a new found respect for others.
Wow, I'm almost surprised to see a look at global politics that actually takes Africa into account!
The now called “ Global South” and their supposed “ dealing with Climate Change “ (as an example) and the Green Agenda (that has worked so well as Germany had shown us and continues to do so); which effects to the whole world weren’t caused by them to start with; will attach their development to what is dictated mainly by Europe ( look at the ins and outs of the drama of a signing of a “ free trade agreement “ between Europe/ Mercosur) limiting their possibilities of getting rid of poverty and corruption ( the corruption that sometimes happen to occur even in the very well established and rich Democracies of the Global North).
So, if the Global North doesn’t change its perception of the Global South, tyrants of the like of Xi and Putin will continue to “hook up” people’s imagination, for lack of options.
This war will change a lot, the world we were used to. We hope that Democracy and the Democratic Principles win, not by its ideals on paper and the “ do as I say and not what I do”; but by allowing ALL Counties that play by the rules ( International Law) with fairness and support and punishing hardly, in unison ( where is the UN? The “ new brain dead” to be resuscitated?) ,those that dare to disturb the prevailing order under which peace and prosperity must be accessible by ALL.
Welcome back. We missed you
I’ve watched more 10 videos of Alex Stubb.
Insightful and forward looking. ❤️
Your analysis is very much appreciated. Keep up the good job.
Fantastic analysis, simple yet comprehensive.
Thank you Alex. As a Canadian who lived in the global South for several years, westerners are generally oblivious to two significant points you observe: First, Collectivism. Socially, more cultures are collective than individualistic. The West tends to only see the negative side of collectivism like authoritarian rule, but it has many benefits like emphasis on family, communities, and sharing resources. Second, Colonialism. The West still acts with a colonial mindset when negotiating with the global south by imposing its values. Example, protecting the rights of the LGBTQ communities. My point is not about our western value to want to protect these rights, but rather, the pressure felt by leaders in the global south to “toe the line” or else they forfeit support, or other benefits. It is a kind of “moral colonialism” that does not respect the values of other cultures.
1. Many collectivist cultures shun family. Look at Russia - you're supposed to sacrifice your son to collective Russia. In Israeli Kibbutz the intention was for children to be raised communally and sever many family ties.
2. It's not moral colonialism, it's the fact that we constantly get burned when we deal with countries which do not respect rights. A country that does not respect rights can just as easily nationalize the industries we built and paid for and we lose our investment. You can easily see why we deal with Arab oil countries - we are responsible for their security. If we pull out and let them fend for themselves, they won't be able to secure their borders and resources. China and Russia may have a narrative where they won't enforce any so-called "moral colonialism" but that just means it's so much easy for investment money to go to waste.
@@ChucksSEADnDEADMost of that is beside the point.
Maybe it's not "Moral colonialism" but that's how it's perceived.
@@moritamikamikara3879 My point is, they're perceiving it at their own risk.
Thanks for your clarity, Alex!
Watching from India support Ukraine
Another fantastic video, thank you!
Lovely to have your pithy summary of the Munich conference. Thanks so much.
Great to hear all those amazing videos.
I recall hearing St Kotkin saying that there are several treaties such as Nato Russia accord,Un Charter,Helsinki accord,Paris Accord,etc. They all have clauses saying all countries have absolute right to join any political or military alliance they choose. These accords were all signed by YELTSIN,PUTIN,MEDVEDEV. Medvedev also said that the war between Nato and Russia is over.
Is this true?
Always on point and refreshing
Thank you for the perspectives that you outlined. In 1994 Russia recognized the internationally recognized borders of post Soviet Ukraine and in fact Russia guaranteed Ukraine's security (along with UK and USA) in exchange for removing all Soviet nuclear warheads from the Ukrainian territory. It appears to me that Mr. Putin is now becoming greedy and wants more from Ukraine under the guise of creating more strategic depth again potential NATO weapons (missiles). If we study the Russian history, we see Russia repeatedly using lame excuses for grabbing chunks of territories of weaker neighbors; today's Russian map is the evidence of the multi generational land grabs (example: in 19th century Russia grabbed 40% of Iranian territories....); so, Russia has a pattern of not caring about rules and laws.
I absolutely agree with youor comment. However, it s only part of the story. Together with the nuclair deal, Bill Clinton made a second deal with Russia that NATO would not expand to Eastern Europe countries. Bush drew a line to this deal and did expand NATO to the east. So yes, Russia is absolutely wrong by invading Ukraine, but it is also fair to say that NATO did also not keep to the agreement.
@@frithjofspeetjens2818 Interestingly the Clinton Archive contains the fact that Boris Yeltsin brought up this very question of non-Expansion to Clinton and Clinton gave zero assurances and zero guarantees. This of course aligns with Gorbachev's testimony that there was no such agreement and that the one Putin references is being taken totally out of context and references only East Germany (which Gorbachev says the West always complied with), and Boris Yeltsin went on to sign several foundational treaties such as the Nato Russia Founding Act, which like the Paris Charter Gorbachev signed, and the UN charter almost all Nations have aligned to, provides for no restrictions on the ability to built security coalitions such as Nato. These are the very reason Russia can have the CSTO. Not only that but Russia under Yeltsin helped clear up a border dispute with Latvia so that IT COULD join Nato. So no, the idea that there was some "agreement" from Nato is just a continuing myth.
Meticulous analysis
@@frithjofspeetjens2818 Said agreement was not official. At most, call it a mutual understanding.
@@frithjofspeetjens2818 Clinton never did anything of the kind, nor did Russia ever demand that. There was an unofficial agreement made that NATO would not expand east of Berlin into Germany *when it was part of the USSR*, which NATO obliged. That's it.
Quite an interesting point of view. Thank you
Can’t agree more. Wise and insightful as always Professor! Thank You.
“Without Limits” is excellent branding for the global east - “you can work with us, do what you want, we won’t get in your way.” In essence they’ve reversed the perception of power vs what they experienced in colonialism.
Why are we saying that the Post Cold War period ended now? Russian beligerence outside of it's borders started in 2008. Russian beligerence in Ukraine started in 2014.
You were correct, of course. However, plenty of people decided to take a blind eye to Russian action in Georgia, and in Crimea. They saw what they wanted to see in those sweet, sweet Russian oil help them to turn a blind eye.
I always enjoy your analysis! Really interesting and enlightening! Thank you for sharing!!
Sounds like a return to the Cold War where the Unaligned nations were heavily courted by both the West and the USSR. Have to say, that from what I've read and heard, the West really didn't particularly do a good job courting the Unaligned nation - rather it relied on Kissinger's Real Politics to prop up dictators that were willing to be "supportive" of the West rather than trying to really engage with and assume the Unaligned nations had agency as sovereign states. Hopefully the West has learned from history if we are moving back into a replay of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Briliant, thanks !
Thank you for the great analysis. In the context of the global North vs global "East", to what extent do entities like SCO and BRICS provide agency to its global South member/observer states?
History shows that democratic and liberal systems are less impacted by crisis. It is easier for them to change narrative and live longer that authoritarian systems. Also, global west collectively has more economic and intellectual power. I think future belongs to democratic and liberal systems. And if you take a look at what current authoritatian rulers say to their subjects (I’m judging by Russian speaking rulers), you realize, that they understand that subconsciously. They speak about past and preserving what system already have. They very rarely speak about future and goals for the future.
I have been out of school for about 5 years, and while I do enjoy my work and making money, I do miss learning. Thank you Mr. Prime Minister for freely enriching my life.
Great analysis!
This was very insightful. The idea of how the Global South is very important. Trump's referring to the "sh**hole countries" was a huge win for the Global East. The Global West should step up their game with the Global South or risk losing their sway.
What is wrong with 'sh**hole countries' reference?
Hello Mr. Prime Minister,
One of the metrics you did not use was that the 40-45 countries that sanctioned Russia represent the technologically advanced countries and the socially progressive countries and most importantly the wealthiest countries.
I am sure we would love to have the other 150 or so countries act appropriately these are the nations can have the most impact.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you.
Really Interesting. Thanks!
Thank you for your interesting videos. I think you are spot on. The "global west" needs to become more active in working with and convincing the "south" of the benefits of a global order to avoid (further) fragmentation. That requires an openness to move away from standard practice until now, and giving the south fairer participation in the global order and its institutions. Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as DG of WTO e.g. was a good step. Supporting the creation of a permanent UN Security Council seat for India (or in rotation with others from the "south" such as Brazil or South Africa) could be another step. And of course intensifying mutually beneficial cooperation on many levels.
Thank you
I very much agree with his conclusions and advice
The idea of writing a bare-bones international constitution that defines basic freedoms like freedom of information, movement, trade, independent judiciary, independent election review, etc has been bouncing around in my head. I also have been thinking about why the UN and such other international organizations have been pretty toothless and I'm beginning to think part of it may be the lack of a true physical, independent capitol. I suggest, due to its current level of devastation and general centrality to world population, that a new independent city-state be established in the area near the Syria/Turkey border in order to rebuild the area, establish peace, and give the world's democracies a neutral territory in which international governance can be practiced. I wonder if anyone else has had similar thoughts? I think it could be a good way to give the U.N./NATO/EU an upgrade and allow us to begin to integrate the global south while rebuilding an area that hasn't had peace since we (the West) created the borders. It would bring a lot of badly needed economic activity to the area and give the potential for a Kurdish state as part of the package. Ignoring the difficulties in establishing such a foothold in the area, I (someone way outside of their field of expertise) wonder if such a solution might be beneficial (if even possible).
Well said
Professor, sorry, but there is nothing new with your theory. You just changed the names.
West = First World
East = Second World
South = Third World
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World .
thank you.
I went off to read that.
To my shame as a 50yo with A keen interest in geopolitics, I had no idea that this classification originated as a political one, from the Cold War.
..
LITTLE new might be A more diplomatic friendlier term ;)
But I'm not specialist enough to judge.
Nice, Didn't really think about it like that and the Global South does have some pull. Now i do see it pulling east ward. But if the G.South is gravity how heavy is the gravitational pull.
this guy speaks incredibly well very clear and concise..
Thank you very much for your lively and comprehensive discussion. As for Munich Security Conference, I tend to believe that the West or North as you mentioned,made a mistake not to invite Russia and or Iran. In fact Munich Security conference could have demonstrated a vivid signal that the Western countries are in the business of dialogue.
I noticed that immediately and I'm from the states
This talk was super dense, very interesting. Your 3-part power description reminds me of how politics is talked about in the US (and many other places), a spectrum with 3 parts.... extreme Left to extreme Right and the Moderates in between who take bits from both sides. It's a sliding scale, a continuum, rather than 3 truly separate parts. The Moderates always seem like the weakest faction because they lack the ferocious certainty of the two extremes. They appear ideologically soft and unprincipled but also more sane and measured.
It's hardly the end of an era. It's a continuation or perhaps a marker in the evolving story of
1. the absolute almost complete victory of market capitalism with its implications for private property rights, a limit on overriding statist capitalism, and its lasting implications about the allied concepts of equality and representative rights. It all leads to "liberalism", which is the great fear in pseudo-autocratic systems such as China, or Russia. It wasn't communism that propelled China into economic or international success....
2. great power competition, with almost everything being a footnote to the ongoing China-US confrontation. China was at Munich mainly to present itself as a power capable of influencing decisively the Russia-Ukraine War. It was there to show it could protect Russia. But it's a hard slog for China, because Russia is faltering, and with this slide it's being exposed as a not-so-major power.
3. this great power competition also is revealing the latent power of the EU/NATO combination ability to exert real influence. The EU -- because of this conflict in Ukraine -- has found new legs. It's shed its dependence on Russia O&G. In fact, the EU is competing directly with Russia for Ukraine. This is a complete turn-around from the German-led compliant attitude to Putin. This is a new chapter in intra-EU relations, and can only lead to more integration and political single-mindedness. It won't brook China trying to dictate the affairs in Ukraine.
4. On sanctioning Russia: yes, it's only just over 40 countries (20% of countries), but they represent over 50% of global GDP. In other words, either as importers or exporters of raw materials or technology, respectively, they have the wherewithal to seriously affect Russia's economy. They are also the major investors in Russia, so capital is denied to Russia.
This is not the same story for a country such as Brazil, which has a limited relationship to Russia in importing some commodities and exporting others. Or S. Africa, or Indonesia. India is a case apart, because Russia plays a balancing force v.a.v. China, India's major competitor. China is the case apart, because of its competition with the US. Russia is its only qualified "ally", so no surprise there.
I don't see any significant story here about a rising Global South except perhaps the fact that the Liberal West will prove to be as transactional as Russia or China in the following decade.
I agree with your statements. To be blunt, I see the Global South having as much significance in the future as it had in the past - virtually none. The economies of the Global South have always been fragile and highly dependent on the West and this will not change. The economies of Russia and China are also heavily dependent on trade with the West. Russia is currently feeling the pain of sanctions which have been extremely effective. China if it has any sense, which is not guaranteed, will be watching Russian economic decline with a sense of foreboding. China would not be able to survive as a nation if subject to similar sanctions and would absolutely fragment.
I view his notion of the world as only something useful to sell a book to us. He has come out with things in the past which have not impressed me. "I never understood Russia." coming from a Finnish Prime Minister reminded me of Obama - good at talking, but asleep at the wheel. To be fair he was a peace time leader I suppose, but I have higher expectations of statesmen.
All the best.
Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
My favorite part of every episode is how he enunciates "welcome to this episode of geopolitics with... ALLEXXX"
Distinctive, comment-worthy , but I do hope not favourite; that would imply everything that follows is rather wasted on the listener ;)
Yeah I get you're just using a figure of speech :)
Alex, can you recommend materials for me to establish a comprehensive understanding of geo-politics? Not sure where to start. I suppose reading a poli-sci 101 book is correct, but maybe you can share some guidance.
Check prof james ker-lindsay last video. It’s a Q&A and one of the questions he answers is exactly like yours.
I listened to the official US Army War College and in one episode, officers stated a lot of countries that work with China/Russian militaries, said they prefer to work with the US military (because of their greater capability), but just can't because the US says oh these guys committed war crimes, we can't work with em.
I don't think the officer was advocating for ignoring such concerns, but was open that these were contributing to US losing influence. He also said countries like France that are used to the region (they were talking about West Africa), they're a lot less picky and will cooperate with a lot of unsavory locals and that got em results.
After listening to your videos, I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.
Interesting thesis. However, how does one account for the demographic decline in China and Russia and the dwindling influence, power therein? (Social chaos is already bubbling up within these two.) As for the "South", well, they can't get their act together on their own internal issues much less with their immediate, regional neighbors. The classic liberal, Western order will carry the day. Need evidence? How many people are streaming across the borders of China and Russia seeking a better way of life? Excellent channel and thought provoking.
This has been your best video so far IMHO. As a brazilian educated abroad and who speaks other languages I am fully simpathetic for the cause of Ukraine and for the values of Democracy and of the western world, in general. Although, as a roman catholic I am of course much more conservative than many of present day westerners. In a way I am more of a westerner than most europeans, who have gone "woke" and reject the traditional values upon which western civilization an Democracy have been built. But the vast majority of the people of my country knows nothing about what is truely happening in Ukraine, China or Russia and sees no problem or danger in making deals with China. If Europe and the US alongside with Australia, Taiwan an Souths Korea an Japan want Democracy and free market do prevail they must work hard in cooperation and trade with countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and many others.
Very good theory, I see lots of sense in this.
No attachments? What about debt?
Greetings from Jacksonville Florida USA. I think that you need to explain why the Global West should care what the Global South decides to embrace. Because of their resources? Because they are potential competition? Because we just want to proselytize?
Hi Professor!...Your notion of a Triangle or Pendulum makes a lot of sense. I feel that from a realist perspective, the determinants for the global South will be based on economic incentives in terms of which regions they want to work with. With the U.S. post WWII maritime security order in decline, the West will need to offer more economic incentives than the East in order to win over the global South. Unfortunately, I do not think the West's liberal democratic institutions and sensibilities will be enough to sway emerging economies. That is, unless the West can show it has the economic upper hand in the coming decades against China. Looking at China's demographic problems, this very well might be possible.
One thing’s for sure during the interregnum (and beyond frankly). Expect much more overt realpolitik, even between allies. The middle powers will be the busy sites of diplomatic action and serve as the proverbial canaries. The global south will serve to muddy up any settled order; The only question is if that miscellaneous pole can be defined as a coherent one at all.
Took them a year to figure it out?
Speed 1.4 is ideal.
"In this struggle the question arises
To the thinking man,
What Power or what Powers are expressing their will
Or their strivings in this upheaval?
And we, what power or powers shall we serve?
To what thing inward or superhuman, we owe allegiance?
What or whom is it that we shall fight to enthrone?"
Sri Aurobindo
I have to say that "Global West-South-East" is not a helpful concept. It is so abstract that is basically becomes meaningless. You could say India and Pakistan are parts of the "Global East" but that does not tell us anything of their unique situation. It is much more helpful to distinguish between levels of influence and competition. USA, China and EU have things they compete on, things they are opposed on and things they cooperate on. The challenge is to enhance the positive levels of these relationships and manage the dangerous levels.
I also have to say that "democracies vs. autocracies" is a terrible, terrible idea. In the early moments of his administration Biden used Poland as an example of autocracy raising its head. Now Poland is a valued ally without changing anything about their domestic policies. Those kinds of high-level concepts become meaningless if you change your course of action on the short-term political benefits, as USA tends to do. We cannot think about international relationships on the abstract, emotional level of a history of ideas. Instead we need to look at the relationships between nations on the practical level and see if these ideas actually matter there.
One theme of the proper dialogue we need to have is the reactive nature of American foreign policy. They go to a crisis, obsess for a time and then move one. We see this in their alienation from South America and Middle East in particular. Also, the underlying assumption in "democracies vs. autocracies" is the distribution of power. According to that concept, USA is the leading democracy so it follow we all need to follow them. And this becomes a stillborn idea, because US domestic policy is so profoundly dysfunctional and their foreign policy is so reactive and short-term.
Last year USA goes behind France's back for the AUKUS submarine deal. Then they invite Macron for a state visit. Seeing Biden gush how USA and France have always stood together in the press conference while Macron stares in amazement was truly surreal. Then Biden has his looming "green subsidies" trade war with Europe. And just this week he goes to Poland for a press conference and literally says "We are helping Europe become free of fossil energy." It does not matter what ideas you represent if this is the practical everyday level of the relationships. One last thing I will say about Biden on the Ukraine War is the dangerous ambiguity of his position. He is not supporting West Europe when they talk of negotiations. Fair enough. But then he gives tremendous support to Eastern Europe, rhetorically and politically, without apparently realising the East has maximalist war aims. According to foreign correspondents, senior leadership in Ukraine sincerely believes USA has maximalist war aims: take back everything, including Crimea, dethrone Putin, permanently weaken Russia. But Biden has not specified that this is his long-term plan. It is a time bomb. Biden needs to take a clearly defined position and risk taking criticism for it, if he truly wants to be the leader of the free world.
As Fiona Hill has remarked, we are seeing a whittling away of American leadership and we cannot know what this means for the international order. But this is not the consequence of ideas disagreeing. This is a consequence of chaotic leadership. Those in senior leadership positions will certainly look at this and more and have to ask the painful, painful question about the reliability of America on the world stage. Because now we are all waiting for the 2024 US election to see what our security looks like!
If only the world was consistent in condemnation of wars that we would be united behind condemning Russia. But the double standards applied is mind boggling and frankly hypocritical. That's how we view it in the global south.
This was an excellent and thought-provoking analysis, especially as to the role of the global south as the third party that could decide which way the new order goes.
And yes, we Americans do get moralistic, and Europeans absolutely have to contend with their colonialist past and how the global south is still affected by it if they want to understand the global south's attitude towards the west.
Please note that Russia Federation also has colonial past but in Asia - not by sea but by land. Also there are European countries that simply have no colonial past. Not that simple, I am afraid :)
Welcome back and you were missed. Eager to pick up your book when it comes out.
As an American in Ukraine, one of the big differences between life after 2021 and life after 2013 here in Ukraine (other than the obvious) is the crash course in global politics that Ukrainians have learned. Why more of the world isn't supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia perplexes many here. I point out to them, then, how much they followed crisis in Myanmar, Yemen, or Venezuela. Not that the Russian invasion isn't a lot less complicated that the Syrian civil war, for example, but if most of the world is starting out not knowing much of anything, it's hard to make sense of it through the propaganda. And that's not just propaganda by the Kremlin but also about the West from all corners of the world.
One point of patience. When I worked on an infrastructure project in Venezuela in the 1990s, institutions like the World Bank was very cautious about lending irresponsibly because of the mediocre results in the 1980s and the associated bad press. China's infrastructure efforts will have similar effects elsewhere, and I think the Western Balkan peninsula is going to serve as one example where they suffer. We're even seeing this with Serbia (Serbia!), where nationalist rhetoric has quieted while the voice of pragmatism becomes more loud.
The strength of the Global West is in the fidelity of the system, not in its promulgations. Sure the world will grow impatient with the lack of transfer it feels its experiencing under this paradigm, but I'm not sure we can account for all aspects of human nature, like impatience and partiality of perception. Afterall, what nation has been transformed more in the last thirty years of the post-Cold War period (rest its soul) than China? It has done so on trade with the Global West.
Very interesting view if the geopolitical pressures. One thing I don’t understand is how close really is China and Russia? Historically very wary of each other. Friendship without limits but China abstains in taking a side in Urkraine war. Seems limited to me.
A brilliant analysis. I think the key question if a global order is to survive is the extent to which countries are willing to relinquish or “pool “ sovereignty. The European Union and the WTO are more or less successful examples of supranational institutions, but they are increasingly under stress. The UK decided that it no longer wanted to pool its sovereignty with other European countries and the USA is increasingly unwilling to abide by WTO decisions (perhaps rightly in view of Chinese manipulation of some of the rules). As for China, there is little indication that it it can conceive of having to sacrifice any of its interests for the greater international good. So you may be right that only through the growing influence of the global south can China and (to a lesser extent) be restrained.
On a slightly different topic, it would be great to see a debate between you and Jeffery Sachs on the question of culpablity for the Ukraine war. Sachs argues that it was NATO expansionist policies as well as the post Maidan governments’ repressive policies towards the Russophile populations of the Donbas region that precipitated the war or at least gave Putin the excuse he wanted. Sachs marshals some interesting and often neglected facts to argue that the war could have been avoided if the West had been more sensitive to Russian core interests and had pressured Ukraine to institute a more federal form of government that would have recognized the historical ties between Ukraine and Russia. At the moment there are two narratives about the war that do not intersect at all. One is that Russia is the aggressor without any justification and the other (Sachs and Mearsheimer) that it is all the West’s fault. I wonder whether the truth is not somewhere in between.
Wherever the fault lies it gives neither side a excuse to thieve, rape and murder innocent people.
@@jdocean1 That of course is true, but unless we understand the causes of the conflict, there is no way to arrive at a viable and permanent peace. Wikipedia has some interesting information about the loyalties of the populations in eastern Ukraine. It seems that the majority was in favor of closer ties with Russia. I am sure that this was the case in Crimea. So it seems to me that the only viable solution is to recognize Crimea as part of Russia in exchange for the Donbas returning to Ukraine, followed by a UN sponsored referendum.
The Ukraine conflict is a European matter or rather a conflict between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine as the cannon fodder. The rest of the world are not concerned and are not involved in it. The Foreign Minister of India, Dr. Jaishankar, stated clearly that the Ukraine conflict doe not concern India. China, too, does not give a damn about the Ukraine conflict, nor do the ASEAN countries, the African countries and the Latin American countries.
I can tell that you are a very good and fair man Alex. What makes the world situation very hard to predict is when you add the lunatick element in the form of for example Hitler and Putin.
I don't think you can look at the Global South as a collective entity. For example, there are wide disparities in reactions to the Ukraine crisis among differing Global South countries.
And in regards to colonialism, we need to be sure to point out Russia's colonialist and imperialist past in Ukraine in particular. I know a few Indians, and they were originally rather pro-Russian, because they have some lingering anti-Western resentments over colonialism and regard for the Soviet Union's history of supporting India. But once I talked to them about Ukraine's history with Russia and pointed out that when their Soviet backer fell apart, not one of the 15 non-Russian Soviet republics chose to remain in a post-Soviet state with Russia and what that said about being ruled from Moscow, they became much more sympathetic to Ukraine.
Thank You Alex for Your excellent analysies of the global world order problem today. Also a 'blind' watcher can see the scandal with the present United Nations, being unable to do anything to change the situation, unfortunately for the whole world.
It's been hijacked by the corrupt second/third-world delegates. These self-enriching leaders have no interest in serious changes for the better for their impoverished citizens.
In fact, it is the western world who has not followed the UN Charter for many great instances. For example NATO/European did not follow the UN Charter when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan under the false pretext and eventually tuned these countries into Stone Age. Do you think these are easily forgotten?
@@007nait how many times are ppl going to mindlessly state this without acknowledging what they were trying to accomplish. They couldn’t mk the changes they were looking for… and those involved the decision makers paid a price for their actions.
You specifically ask for comment so respectfully please see below. As a West European with children I have had to accept reality and adress our flaws. Better to embrace the bad news than try to deny it.
Over the past year, the most devastating wars have been caused by the West - from Iraq and Yemen to Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and beyond. Throughout these conflicts and invasions, I haven't seen you question the idea of global order. The concept of global order only seems to be raised now when Russia, from the Global East, invades Ukraine. When America and its allies invaded other countries, there was little discussion about global order. While it's important to have a world-based order, it must be applied universally. The ongoing war in Palestine, where millions are suffering, highlights the need to address situations where certain nations may not adhere to the global order.
Agree and stop with the sanctions🇨🇦
Hello Alex,
let me comment, I lived 30 years in a, maybe better under, as you call "authoritarian regime". An authoritarian, collectivist regime is not a regime, that would people living under its rule choose as their free choice. So my first personal rule is "no more". My observation and truly personal experience are, that peoples, when the situation is furthersome, will deal with the regime themselves. There is no difference between the dreams and idea of personal freedom among "western" peoples, Chinese, Russian, or South Africans. When the furthersome conditions prevail and whichever peoples start their journey towards freedom, "west" must be prepared to help, the situation after a change is vulnerable, and this is where "west made crucial mistakes in the '90s in Russia and after Maidan in Ukraine. This horrible war could be prevented, and the "west could have been much stronger against China today. So fully agreed, India (a Golem on clay feet), needs to be supported and kept on the western side, China step by step expelled from Africa (hard to deal the corrupt regimes).
nice shirt.
Categorising a new era isn't important, but the point in time for significant changes to come is. "The West" is beginning to realise their perception was wrong, or is it just some in the West? ("Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall"). I like the picture of winning the hearts very much, let's do that!
I will be watching this dynamic more closely. I have worried for years about Chinas ways of “leasing equipment and financing infrastructure” to poorer countries. It will be a big part of this boiling point I fear in swinging the south east or west
Very interesting explication of the direction of the global order. The useful generalization I heard and that we all often use regarding East and West is that one focuses on individual rights and the other on the collective good. However, I feel that both focus primarily on the collective good. But it is the "new" wisdom of the West that you cannot ultimately maximize collective good without vigilantly safeguarding the individual good.
Out of the lightness of my heart I use the example of Kirk and Spock. Spock died because he said "the good of the many outweighs the good of the one" . When Kirk risks the lives of everyone to recover Spock , and Spock asks why, Kirk says "because the good of the one outweighs the good of the many." The voice of the West if you will.
While you are not wrong with respect to the triad of power as you described, I would suggest that the most important way to influence the global south is economic investment. However, not necessarily funneled through the respective governments. Instead, I would suggest that small, personal, or business loans tied to initiatives to form distributed supply chains across the global south, would help build up the middle class and political classes of the global south. A strong middle class is the best antidote to authoritarian tendencies. Further competitive financing of infrastructure projects to support this global south supply chain (roads, bridges, ports,etc), tied to institutional reforms, (Financial accountability, independent judiciary, free press, democratic transparency) would go furthest in moving the global south to adopt Western order values. However, no effort should be made to impose Western social values. These will take care of themselves once people have the economic surplus to enjoy philosophical pursuits, the education to debate abstract ideas, and the hope to give their children a better life. By strengthening the middle class and their institutions, we can give them the tools to eventually join the global west economically, politically, and socially on their own.
I am not an expert in geopolitics, but having lived over 70 years in Latin America, as well as having worked in multinational companies locally and abroad, I dare say that this "new order" will not arise from any kind of influence from the "global south", since most of these countries act like as they were the kids of the block. I do not deny that a little bit of respect, cooperation and closer relations initiated by the developed West would help, mainly in the sense of improving their institutions. But the "global south" with its distorted and sometimes childish sense of pride, pretending to act as if they were the adults in the room, had better learn from their own experience, in practice and from the difficulties imposed by the developed world. No pain no gain. Most of these countries have been developing very slowly, like unbalanced trailers dragging behind the developed countries. And worse. When autocracies like China open up their taps to countries in the "global south", for example by buying massive amounts of commodities, they do not do any better in helping them, in any sense. To cite Brazil as a recent example, countries in the south continue to act recklessly by wasting easy-earned money and raising the level of corruption as much as they can. To make matters even worse, the autocracies that pour money into their hands don't mind playing this sort of indecent game.
Under the bottom line I cannot see any artificially negotiated model of global cohexistence as underdeveloped countries will not respect rules they cannot understand in practice.
The west has no great unifying leader (needs one) to make a cohesive case using a transactional approach to offset the global east. I don't see the global east having longevity in a disrupted global order. We will see some regional stability centered on great powers, but global disorder will be the norm for a couple decades in my estimation.
we should amend the laws ...in certain occasions, the UN Assembly should be entitled to paralyse che Veto power
Dear Alex, please read the China Foreign Ministry position paper; "US hegemony and its perils". It sets out exactly what is wrong with the Global West. I project the Global South will whole heartily agree. No amount of "dignified Foreign policy" as you propose is going to correct that.
It is a derect challenge to the West.
You are more realistic now compare what you said a year ago, I think you'll be more realistic a year from now.
Agree, there is stability in a tripartite division of global power.
Consider one modelled on say past German voters political behaviour of 2 major parties differentiated by particular values/policies with a small 'centralist' party temporarily siding with one or other of the major parties. In this case the 'global south' would take on the role of 'centralist party'. NZ experience (since the 1990's) with the same political structure is that the 'centralist' party tends to be short lived coalitions of relatively marginal players, which is somewhat analogous to the countries of the 'global south'.
However, this seems to require an explicit, particular and enforced structure to work successfully ie Germany's 5% of votes threshold for entry to Parliament. Witness the chaotic behaviour of the Israeli system with its lower threshold. This structure was imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWII as a top-down solution. It doesn't seem that it can easily emerge bottom-up as a form of world governance, given the failure of the UN to date. Any likelihood of the UN Security Council veto being changed to a majority decision?
If it is values , principles and orders why can't you cutt off trade ties with autocracies
Liberal democracies- LGBTQ gender transformation woke ideological leftist order.
Rules based order - Western rules roma empire order
It's all about business , control , economy and hegemony etc
At least South America now has a very pro-Russia (and East) opinion that's not yet translated into actual diplomatic stance by fear of the West. This equilibrium is only a matter of time.
\ Biden has the balls to go to Ukraine! While Putin does not!😂
Glory to the Heroes!
#PutinWarCriminal
1984
Alex, I think you could categorize the reaction of the Global South you need look no further than Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs! The Global South has h historically been in a perpetual state of Chaos especially with their leadership. With Maslow's hierarchy, the two first mandatory needs are safety and basic needs ie FOOD! Most of the Global South is always involved in some kind of war either civil, with another country, with gangs or crime in general, sex trafficking, drugs trade etc. Maslow states it is impossible to move on until one's levels are attained and only then can you move into areas that don't directly effect you. It is self-survival above all else. The War in Ukraine means nothing to them except 'where am I going to get food' because the grain shipments are being sabotaged by Russia yet that is too abstract for those starving.
Alex is this really a triangle? Take India for example: I have studied its position in the UN and listened carefully to recent remarks to the BBC by its foreign minister. I surmise that India is resolutely pro Russian with a thin veneer of neutrality to protect its trading reputation. It argues for moral equivalence of Ukraine/Russia, promotes spurious definitions of war crimes, and puts trade ahead of morality. I think it is time to wake up to this reality rather than taking the optimistic view of the swinging pendulum.
BRICS!!!!!
Food and Energy. Completely ignored.
The issues at stake are that NPT is dead as a rat! The nuclear boomerang will come to haunt us, and it will be of global consequences!
As someone from the Global South, I’d point out it’s not just about agency in the world order.
Non alignment, in my point of view, has 2 main pillars:
1. The west is very much hypocrite on many accounts. NATO invaded Iraq, where Saddam was a bad guy sure, but it was against international law. And at the same time, where is International outrage and support for Yemen, for example?
Stepping aside hypocrisy in war, the West approach on climate change is laughable… the West has put most of the artificial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and got rich doing so (and still has much higher per capita emissions) and destroyed pretty much all of their forests. But somehow think they have the moral high ground on climate change?
This brings me to the second pillar: self interest. The global, rules based, order is very important to the West… except when there are vaccines to be distributed, or a run on natural gas after a war started. Europe averted its energy crunch, sure. But prices on energy are now crippling already poor countries.
While French farmers are stopping the EU-Mercosul trade deal from happening (again, where are the French forests they can point to? The Amazon is still ~85% there, how much of the original Black Forest is still standing?), China is our largest trading partner. And Chinese trade is growing. And it lift people out from terrible poverty.
At the same time, Europe still import oil and gas from Russia. And we are supposed to stop importing fertilizer that helps feed a billion people? I guess Westeners would just pay more for food while the South starves.
In the end, most in the South quite agree with a liberal order and it’s principles. It’s just that they usually don’t apply to us as the West don’t remember we exist. So we are just acting like the West and trying to look out for ourselves.
I still think America should go FULL ISOLATIONIST !
Let China and Russia finish each other off. I’m tired of being blamed for everything and Washington DC thinks “too globally” and forgets there’s humans called Americans who need leadership BADLY!
the good professor is quite conversing. we define rules and we enforce in other countries. hey global south, obey us! pathetic.
Alex-I am very disappointed that since Putin's War began and we immediately saw the impotency of the UN, why aren't people in an uproar and doing everything in its power to make the changes it so desperately needs? The League of Nations showed its weakness glaingly during the Nanking Incident by the Japanese. Japan was roundly condemned but the League could do nothing BUT condemn it and Japan disagreed and just walked out and quit. When the UN was formed during WWII, it was supposed to have more teeth and be more meaningful. Well, this war showed that the UN doesn't have anymore teeth than the League had, maybe even less because Russia STILL sits on the Security Council as a permanent member which is laughable as it has thumbed its nose at every single UN principle! Something needs to be done and Russia should have immediately been thrown off the council and maybe out of the UN itself. I don't care if a precedent wasn't in the Charter, you somehow just do it especially after the proof of war crimes emerged in Bucha.
This all sounds like the cold war part 2. The USSR and NATO fought for influence in the global south by offering either benefits or harm. All either side really earned from the global south was resentment.
But now the global south position is we aren't on anyone side we will deal with you all equally according to what you offer to us and we won't take a side. And don't bring your attachments about democracy with your proposals
So the Global South has the following questions, “how do we deal with climate change? How do we deal with energy? How do we deal with trade? How about infrastructure? How about health? How about food security?” China and Russia are making most of these problems worse and if the Global South wants to play footsie with these two then they themselves are making the problems worse yet. It’s not going to be pretty once the citizens of the Global South wake up and see who has really benefitted (a new class of African and Latin American oligarchs, I predict). The West is getting played once again by pure power politics.
I think that it is a pritty shallow analysis, it is too simplyfied, and black and white in its spirit , and do not consider for instance technological trends, and demographic ones for instance, that will shift things radically, from that kind of development of events thet he "predicts"...