Geopolitics of Russia: A Simplistic Interpretation of the Perspectives of the West & the Kremlin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Why would Russia invade Ukraine? Does Vladimir Putin have any good reasons? Why does Russia feel that Ukraine is a part of its territory? In this video, I will do my best to try to explain where the Kremlin is getting its ideas from, and how war could have returned to the normally peaceful European continent. Are Putin's actions rational in the modern sense, or are they just a throwback to the way countries interacted hundreds of years ago? How does Moscow justify its invasion of Georgia, Ukraine, and perhaps other countries in Eastern Europe?
The purpose of this video is to summarize the self-perception of the West, how it views Russia, and how Moscow may perceive its geopolitical situation. It does not cover any of the topics in great depth. Thank you for your patience.
Wikipedia article on wars between democracies:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...
Further reading:
Disunited Nations, Peter Zeihan
Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshall
The End of Eurasia, Dmitri V. Trenin
The Dynamics of Russia’s Geopolitics, David Oualaalou
The Next 100 Years, George Friedman
Ukraine and Russia, Paul D'Anieri
📚 Luke Ranieri Audiobooks:
luke-ranieri.myshopify.com
🦂 Support my work on Patreon:
/ lukeranieri
☕️ Support my work with PayPal:
paypal.me/lukeranieri
🦂 Sign up for my Latin Pronunciation & Conversation series on Patreon:
/ 54058196
And if you like, do consider joining this channel:
/ @polymathy_luke
🏛 Latin by the Ranieri-Dowling Method: luke-ranieri.myshopify.com/co...
🏺Ancient Greek by the Ranieri-Dowling Method: luke-ranieri.myshopify.com/co...
🏛 Ancient Greek in Action · Free Greek Lessons:
• Ancient Greek in Actio...
👨🏫 My Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata playlist · Free Latin Lessons:
• Greetings in Latin · L...
🦂 ScorpioMartianus (my channel entirely in Latin & Ancient Greek)
/ scorpiomartianus
🎙 Hundreds of hours of Latin & Greek audio:
lukeranieri.com/audio
🌍 polýMATHY website:
lukeranieri.com/polymathy/
🌅 polýMATHY on Instagram:
/ lukeranieri
🦁 Legio XIII Latin Language Podcast:
/ legioxiii
👕 Merch:
teespring.com/stores/scorpiom...
🦂 www.ScorpioMartianus.com
🦅 www.LukeRanieri.com
📖 My book Ranieri Reverse Recall on Amazon:
amzn.to/2nVUfqd
Intro and outro music: Overture of Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute) by Mozart
#Russia #Ukraine #Geopolitics
00:00 Intro
01:11 Russia's Geography
04:22 Lebensraum
07:15 The European Union
08:08 NATO
09:17 Divisions: First vs Second World
11:31 The Kremlin's Worldview: A Simplistic Analysis
16:21 NATO's Worldview: A Deliberately Incomplete Analysis
18:39 The Kremlin does not speak for all Russians
I think the most subtle yet crucial aspect of your analysis lies in your apt use of the word "Pleonexia" - A term used (coined?) by Thucydides to explain the insatiable appetite of the Athenian empire for more. More land, more money, more glory, just MORE, and their constant *Grasping* to satisfy that need. It gets back to Catherine's quote from the beginning of the video. The subtle twist is that Pleonexia is ultimately self-defeating, sometimes slowly but sometimes much more quickly. The key is that Pleonexia encourages truly terrible strategies that only undermine the Pleonexiacs.
I might add to your section on NATO's worldview (Specifically the United States) that their mentality during the Cold War was not without fear either, as the strategy of "Containment" resulted in some truly heinous actions and forced regime-changes in Asia, Africa, and especially South America - stopping the spread of communist economic ideologies and essentially preventing anyone in the "Third World" from joining the "Second World" was a dirty business. I believe your analysis is spot-on for North America, Europe, and the borders of the USSR itself, but the wider conflict was a much nastier process, and much more likely to give Soviet leadership the impression that NATO was just as scheming and duplicitous as the USSR was. GRANTED, this is a side tangent to your main point about the USSR itself, and in that regard, I think your analysis is excellent.
Cheers,
-Blue
Blue! Thanks so much for your comment; I adore your videos. I completely agree. It’s really hard to start talking about these issues without going into lots of really important details that give vital context. I had about another 20 minutes of the video that I cut since I was discussing these issues and others, and it felt too tangential.
Good up the great work!
Everyone go subscribe to Overly Sarcastic for outstanding historical and literary analyses.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Oh believe me, mate, I get it. :D I tried to cover the entire Cold War in 14 minutes. That stuff is TRICKY.
I sympathize immensely. But this is really a great video specifically for how you got into the psychology of the USSR/Russia, that's much harder to contextualize.
-B
@Sam Wallace Time passed, things changed.
Being born in soviet union to people that sacrificed a lot to end it, it's frustrating how much credit USA gets. Vilnius group worked hard for decades to get into NATO, and nowadays it just get's glossed over as NATO expansion eastwards.
It's almost like there is a deliberate effort to drown out the voices of the people on the borders of Russia
Two youtubers I watch interacting each other; albeit quite obscure too. Small world!
"I've been your host Luke of Caspian Report"
Haha I wish. His videos are tremendously insightful
Thank you for your input - I hope you don’t mind if I share with you some criticism:
5:19 I think this part about the name Rus is too oversimplified although I understand what you are trying to say. Now, the term Rus as a name for a people group continued to be used by East slavs long after the Kievan Rus disintegrated and got dominated by the Mongols & Polish-Lithuanians. The Muscovites and the other Russian principalities, as well as the Ruthinian principalities under Polish-Lithuanian rule considered themselves Rus well into the late middle-ages and beyond - so the Muscovites didn't suddenly decide that they are the Rus just to legitimise conquests to their West. The problem I have here is that it sounds like the Muscovites just used the name Rus for propaganda purposes - which they certainly did - but they also sincerely thought of themselves as Rus - they were born after all out of the Rus principality of Vladimir. But I get your point - which is that Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians are not the same people anymore - which is undeniably true and a natural result of diverging histories & cultural/linguistic evolution - and today Putin is using the Rus as a tool to legitimize the subjection of these peoples.
4:25 Lebensraum (which I think is best translated as “habitat”) was not the concept used to primarily justify the unification of German speaking peoples in central & eastern Europe. Instead, it was used to argue that the Germans as one of the most populous peoples of Europe and the world had little space to live on compared to the US or China. Lebensraum was used to justify the German goal of eliminating the slavs of Eastern Europe to be settled instead with German “warrior peasants" (Wehrbauern). Because of this, I don’t think it's a good comparison to Russia’s goals in Ukraine. Putin does not seek more “habitat” for Russians to settle/live, but as you rightly point out more geographic security & the (forced) unification of East Slavic peoples under one state and identity.
11:40 I would say it's at best debatable whether this has eliminated the need for empires :’ ) It's a bit cliche, I know, but its not completely wrong to describe the incredibly influential networks of the US across the world (and France especially in Africa) as ‘modern empires’.
18:45 I think here lies the biggest issue I have with the analysis: The argument that this Realpolitik-like foreign policy is a backwards thinking from the 19th century (of course I’m aware that is your personal opinion). I think it's half-true - In the ‘Western World’, we’ve abandoned this line of thinking at home - but that doesn't mean it's become a relic of the past. Realpolitik is very alive outside of North America and Europe - and if we take a look at the foreign policy of France in North Africa for example, we can still see that this type of thinking is alive and well even in a number of big Western democracies. I’m not a realist; I don’t subscribe to this or any other theory in International Relations; but I don’t think its a solid argument to say this is a thinking of the past that we (the Western World) have overcome, when in reality it still plays a major role in the world and even in our very own foreign policy outside of the first world. Rather than arguing that it's outdated, I think it would have been better if you argued that it's not a viable policy approach for peace/prosperity and liberty.
Russia’s war in Ukraine is unjustifiable by all major benchmarks. But I fear that this conflict has the tendency to make people in the Western world believe that they are fundamentally different from people who subscribe to a Realpolitik-esque foreign policy - which can make us blind to our own failings and arrogant in our conduct with the second and third world.
Please don’t take these criticisms the wrong way - I think it's good and necessary to have an open and vivid discourse online about this unfortunately tragic and dangerous war. As someone who makes content on geopolitics all the time and enjoys your linguistic content, I just thought I might share this with you.
Hi Politics with Paint! I really enjoy your videos; please keep making them! Your summary of the South China Sea dispute was superb. The Nuclear Weapons video also had key insights I appreciated.
I am grateful for your comments.
Point one on Rus': I agree. My comment was too simplistic.
Point two on Lebensraum: You're completely right of course about these details: Hilter's stated goal of annihilating the Slavic race (and any others deemed less worthy by the Third Reich) was not explicitly connected to his desire to create buffer zones for the homeland or to connect ethnic Germans under one state. My point, which was a bit too glib, was that the subconscious origin of Hitler's desires was inextricably linked to the same geographical imperatives that Putin is responding to.
On empires: This part of the video is actually a much shorter version of what was originally had here, but I cut for time (it was about ten extra minutes that I cut). I had a long section explaining the New World Order post WWII, where Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan set the stage for the US making the agreement with other partner countries to patrol all the world's oceans on their behalf, to make them safe for commerce. Mercantilism and empires were the previous system, where a navy and an empire was necessary for a state to achieve great status and wealth. So that's what I meant there, but you're right on the other aspects.
On Realpolitik: I concur entirely. I believe I inadequately allowed my description of the parties' perceptions of themselves and one another to blend with a more factual interpretation of how things are. The West, for example, tends towards justice and free trade and democracy and a hundred other things that are lovely and good, but we can find countless examples of the contrary domestically or internationally. In the longer section I cut out, I sought to explain why the Realpolitik of past centuries had become less substantial as the language of international relations thanks to the post-WWII world order. As for the idealistic view I gave the West, I think this is how they see themselves. But we can find lots of scenarios where Realpolitik is what really happened between them. You wrote, "I think it would have been better if you argued that it's not a viable policy approach for peace/prosperity and liberty," and I agree completely. Well said.
This is also very well said: "Russia’s war in Ukraine is unjustifiable by all major benchmarks. But I fear that this conflict has the tendency to make people in the Western world believe that they are fundamentally different from people who subscribe to a Realpolitik-esque foreign policy - which can make us blind to our own failings and arrogant in our conduct with the second and third world." Quite true. It's one of the reasons I incerted that clip from Star Trek Deep Space Nine where Quark is describing the good guys, who had become dangerous and violent because they didn't have the same advantages as other humans who had enjoyed consistent peace and wealth. It was my attempt to explain that any of us, or any of our countries, could end up where the Russia is at the moment.
Thanks very much for the discussion!
@@polyMATHY_Luke Thank you, I’m very happy that you enjoy my content! I think you are completely right when you said “this conflict is as complicated as the world”. As content creators we stand before the impossible challenge to condense issues with incredible complexity into digestible short videos. And not only is this issue incredibly complicated, but also ongoing on top of that. And after cutting things here and there to avoid making a 4 hour documentary we inevitably end up simplifying things or leaving things out. I really enjoyed your video and I think you made a lot of important and well illuminated points - it was a surprising but very welcome topic to find on your channel. Wish you and your channel the best!
As a Russian speaker, I must add that Rus' has always been a colloquial way of calling Russia. Even the Russian name for ethnic Russians (russkiye) is derived from word Rus'.
Both Muscovy and Russia are western neologisms.
@@nimkati5627 Fun fact: Rus is even name of insect similar to cockroach in Czech, it's used as insultation very often against Russian, I am curious where that name comes from
@@Pidalin probably has something to do with the color. In Russian, we sometimes use the word "русый" (rusyj?) for the light brown-ish color, mostly referring to hair. Not sure about Czech, but I bet there is a similar word
I’ve been visiting Russia regularly since 1994. I’d say this analysis is not only accurate but better than most of the things you will read in mainstream news outlets.
That's really nice of you to say, Justin. Thanks so much for the kind words. May we all enjoy a more peaceful world in the near future.
@@polyMATHY_Luke the map around 3:40 does though.
@@mejlaification What do you mean?
@@mejlaification I read your other comment, it's not saying that Austria is in NATO, The graphic says "Joined NATO and/or the EU after 1992". I don't know if that was your only issue or something else.
It's incredible how badly reported this war. No news from either front. Generic videos or images that could be from this conflict, the ongoing one in Donbas, Georgia or even Syria.
>Be a country in a strategic geopolitical location
>Watch world powers mess with you
>They blame it on each other
2021 Russian Defense Budget: $41.6 billion 2021 US Defense Budget: $740.5 billion
These figures reflect the comparative size of the two economies, not the comparative belligerence
@@dmitriminaev | One is a budget used to defend oneself and influence a neighborhood.
The other is a budget used to establish dominion over an entire planet.
@@sowhat249 Not true. Soviet used to be with the goal of global dominion too. What was Soviet doing in Africa which caused Zanzibar massacre? What was Soviet doing in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968, they were not neighborhood of Soviet? What were KGB agents did in Yugoslavia, tried to kill Josip Broz Tito in order to make Yugoslavia out from its non bloc stance?
Both of you are the same, blyin.
@@Etendard1708 | In case gou haven't noticed, the Soviet Union is dead. As is the Russian Empire, British Empire, Ummayad Caliphate, Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, Japanese Empire, French Empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese, Macedonian Empire... All these empires had plans to dominate the world, but no longer exist. We are speaking about today. The only countries with such goals today, are the US and China. The US is trying to force everyone into obedience with it's military, while China is trying to force everyone by getting everyone economically dependent. Giving out loans, buying out shipping ports, building infrastructure in God forgiven countries.
@@sowhat249 And that's my point. All of you are aimed for world dominion. If USA lost the cold war and Soviet won, they (USA) can use similar excuse as you "one is a budget used to influence neighborhood, the other is a budget used to establish dominion over an entire planet".
Both of you in the beginning wanted to establish dominion over an entire planet. Soviet/Russia is no exception.
A real masterpiece, truly fascinating. I’m glad to have found ur channel.
The notion that NATO is a defensive alliance is nonsense. They attacked Serbia, Libya, and Afghanistan, under article 4. Also, NATO countries invaded Iraq, on the weakest of pretense. It's only Western cultures that mistakenly believe that NATO is benign, because we're the 'good guys'. There's a long history of American aggression towards Russia that is missing from this synopsis. Arming and training the Azov Battalion is also central.
@@gracchus7782 thanks for taking the time bc that's why I'd have written, in the exact way you did 👍
@@gracchus7782 Fact #1: Majority of people who participated in 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Fact #2: There was no "ongoing genocide" in Serbia. NATO pretext for attack was to prevent genocide from happening. Even so, the attack was against international law and UN charter, and NATO charter as well. The attack was followed by majority of NATO countries recognizing the independence of Kosovo in 2008 directly against UN Resolution 1244 that they voted for themselves. Fact #3: The Iraq attack was against UN charter and it was done on a false pretense of WMD existing in Iraq. It goes directly against the assumption in the video that Western countries are always following international law and the rule of law in general. You are also wrong in assuming that all of the justifies Putin's attack. It only shows hypocrisy and double standards. During bombing of Serbia, NATO hit hospitals too. (One example: www.theguardian.com/world/1999/may/20/balkans9 ) It bombed both Iraq and Serbia with depleted uranium causing cancer rates in children and adults to increase tenfold in generations to come. www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium
With the depth and breadth of topics covered on this channel, you are tragically underrated
That’s very nice of you to say.
A paradigm shift is in the making. Great video Luke. We live in interesting times.
It is just great seeing you dive into these topics! Congratulations for the depth and accuracy.
Thanks very kindly
This is a fantastic video Luke. Thank you for putting this together!
Thanks for watching it, Reilly!
Lebensraum actually doesn't mean "breathing room", but litterally "life's room" ("space to live in")
My translation was idiomatic.
Haha I thought he meant breeding room as it isn't too far fetched
In other words, przestrzeń życiowa.
This analysis is spot on, telling as a Ukrainian.
I am amazed at how versatile a person you are, Luke. A true man of science. I have learnt Latin from you. As a phonologist I have always admired your linguistic expertise and your ability to present complex issues in an accessible way. Now you teach me geopolitics. I am your fan, one of many I am sure. Keep up the good work. We need people like you on You Tube. Greetings from Warsaw, man! Cura ut valeas!
You never cease to amaze me, amīcissime. Well done!
Molto gentile, caro, grazie!
I think it's a bit disingenuous to build your argument with the idea that the West respects international law, while in contrast the Russian mindset being "might makes right". The few western countries with actual military power typically don't let international law to stand between them and their geopolitical interests, so "might makes right" for their elected leaders as well. Plenty of examples since the end of WWII, and it does help to explain why a leader like Putin would mistrust the West.
It's just plainly not true and for someone who claims to have studied geopolitics for a long time to make such a naive assertion is honestly baffling.
Russia: I'm might so I don't need follow international law.
West: I'm might so I'm one to set international law for everyone to follow.
respecting rule of law, and respecting international law are not necessarily the same thing.
In most cases in which a western country defies international law it is because that country has never signed onto the relevant treaty, making the law irrelevant in the eyes of that countries legal system.
I think the difference is that the West needs the appearance of answering to the will of the people (or to manipulate that with corporate + government alliances), while Russia can ignore that to a much bigger extent, although the backlash is there to some degree. Even if the western system is flawed, it's much more difficult for the elites to go all out on their ambitions when they at least have to pretend to be doing things for the greater good, they just became more adept at manipulation. It's ultimately a more peaceful system, even if it isn't absolutely peaceful.
The west does respect laws more than Russia. But doesn't follow them completely.
This video analysis is, by far, the best I have come across since the beginning of these historical events. Once again, Luke, you didn’t disappoint. Thank you for making this video, thank you for helping to educate those of us who want to be educated.
thank you for having the final chapter. very insightful
The distrust is what some Czech people suffer from too. Germany is despised by many till this day. I feel that even after 3 decades there has been a sense of understanding the world with a communist/ww2 point of view. I have these people in my family..
That’s very interesting. Would you care to tell us more about that? Děkuji
I think the distrust of Germany goes a lot more to the past than just ww2. Although I would agree that the most of these negative sentiments that still resonate in our society today are those sentiments left by the rise of Nazi Germany.
@@polyMATHY_Luke I am embarrassed when people here say they hate Germans and prefer the Russians. Because Germany has been a mortal enemy of the Czech people. There were Centuries of oppression concluded by the second Great War is what people were told for decades by the state apparatus supported by evidence from Moscow. This sentiment is prevalent in the older generation who lived through socialism but also not rare with youngsters no doubt informated through social media
People don't know how to work with the abundance of data online and cannot tell what's right or even could be right .. Actually it was the Soviets who did more harm(stealing and raping) when they were liberating Czech from nazis than what nazis did during their years of occupation of the protectorate
@@laserad | Not trying to justify Soviet actions during WW2 but it wasn't just the deeds but the plans for the future. The Soviets ended up jerks, but that was nothing compared to what Germany would've done if the Soviets didn't stop them.
After the Jews, the Slavs were next in line for extermination. They sent thousands of slavic toddlers and babies (who fit the physical criteria, light skin and hair...) back to Germany to be brought up as Germans. After the Jewish genocide was over, they would've have filled the concentrstion camps with slavs next, because although they were white, they'd intermixed with the Mongols, Tatars, Huns, Avars, Khazars, and because of this, he believed they were impure and lost their Aryan status.
So, what now? Do we tolerate the soviets or rather have the germans perform a genocide on a never before seen scale? They frickin murdered 18M soviet civilians. Not everything is as black and white as it seems. If the soviets didn't do what they did, the slavs would've been no more.
I would introduce the notion that most countries don't anything to blame on Russia or even the USSR, while the USA has intervened in many of them, arguably to defend their own interests. I would like to know the idea you have about that, but I realize it's a very complex subject. Thanks for the video!
Right, it is indeed complex. There is very much to be said about the US, but I wanted to try to focus on what Putin might be thinking.
Unfortunately, USA disobeyed the international law and it raises the bigger issue of who will police the police. But it's whataboutism. We talk about Russian complete and utter spit in the face of international laws and organizations justifying its ugly actions by whatabouting US misdeeds.
What is your honest opinion on Russia, as we speak?
@@YuriRadavchuk Russia has a political regime that I wouldn't want for my country, as far as I know. But its government has been quite effective in promoting the country's development, so far. This very last movement was perhaps unwise, but we'll see how all this ends up.
@@DiomedesDioscuro to summarize, it's a façade state. Seems good, but under the curface, there is an ugly inner yard with poverty and neglect of human dignity.
I think you nailed a lot of things that are often forgotten by others and made an excellent contribution to the conversation that is missing in the minds of many people who try to understand the world.
That’s a very generous comment. Thank you.
I'm surprised to see such a video here. But after watching it I'm glad to see it here.
Some perspectives from beyond everyday news, from more persistent historical & linguistical aspects can put chaos back to order.
This video is one of them.
Überraschend gut gemacht! Solche Themen sind immer sehr extrem heikel.
Excellent essay. Thank you! It shows wonderfully how different fields of knowledge (politics, history, philosophy, linguistics, trek culture ...) can cross-fertilise and provide illuminating insight.
Thanks, I’m glad you like it.
This is a very nice short lesson of history for those who haven't cared for history until now. Well done.
Thanks for the kind words
Fantastic video, Luke!
I love your channel, and it seems that several other high quality channels agree with me based on this comment section.
A well-documented explanation, Luke! As a citizen of Romania (which was under the Soviet sphere of influnece until 1989) I can still notice the plagues caused by the lack of trust, generalized paranoia and doublespeak in the Romanian modern society. I foresee a long and painful way for Russia and Russians to change their mindset towards the democratic values of the 21st century.
That’s very interesting. I would argue that to some extent this is how countries conducted themselves until more recently in history. My affection to Romania 🇷🇴
not the only romanian here I see . Never known the author is a military pilot and intelligence officer among others. Initially thought that his background is of a catholic priest :)
In my opinion, in the mid-90s Russians were pretty eager to accept democratic values. But then something happened that made them despise democracy. It could be the Chechen wars and terrorism. Or it could be the disappointment after 1998 bombardments of Yugoslavia. Or something else, I don't know what. Now, we'll have to follow the same way again.
@Ionut Stoica I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in the general idea. Most democracies today count on the US. And there are quite some arguments to be had whether the US is a true democracy (the voting system and the media being controlled by certain people). Therefore, lots of countries outsource their defense and then "claim" civilizational and moral high-ground (for example Germany with respect to "green" energy), when truth be told, they would not be able to do that without the US. And the US is arguably not a true democracy (just a good approximation of one).
So it seems disingenuous and slightly hypocritical as a Romanian to claim that Russia has a road to democracy when our own country doesn't have one, nor do its citizens have any intention on creating a stable and reliable one (for example, completely lacking any desire to defend themselves and relying entirely on allies, the biggest of which has severe flaws in its own democracy).
I am also Romanian btw.
@@dmitriminaev
It was the economic disaster that the 1990s brought.
Forced privatization of the economy (which created oligarchs) and rigged elections (Yeltsin won with only 6% approval??) created such a poor quality of life that Russians became convinced- I think correctly- that the West was never interested in helping them.
Thank you, Luke! It is exactly like you described it. A longer video could of course hold more nuance, but this was accurate regardless.
Thanks. I did have a much longer version of this video that I cut for time. The near final version had 10 minutes that I cut. Maybe it’ll make its way into a future video.
Love your videos always Luke 😊😊 they really are informative.
Thanks very much
It is so great to hear at least part of the general historical background (as I read in the comments, many issues have been touched lightly for timing reasons) for many who are not aware of the invasion in the Ukraine. I thank you for the time you take and the careful vocabulary and content for an objective as possible as it can be of actual facts.
Thank you!!
Thanks for the kind support, Mani!
Nice video! I do think there are a few misleading parts though. Yes, the USSR was very oppressive, but economically speaking, most people became much wealthier under the USSR than previously during the Empire.
And equating USSR leaders with Plato's "philosopher king" does a huge disservice to Plato. But I see the point you were trying to make.
Also, the dichotomy between Western and Russian values isn't really tenable.
The West, especially the US, violates international law all the time. The West doesn't respect human rights either (well, only for its own citizens). The West's interventions in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South America have repeatedly shown this disregard.
Arguing that the West embodies international law and respect for human dignity while characterizing Russia as reliant on power dynamics and corruption is just not an objective analysis.
I think the Chomskian perspective needs to balance out the view here. All political entities act in their own best interest regardless of international laws or abstract values like human rights. In that respect, the West and Russia are the same.
Putin has no reason to see Western leaders as righteous or law-abiding because the history and track-record simply show otherwise. I don't think it's "projecting" on his part; it's basic Realpolitik.
Now, it is true that Putin is probably more duplicitous and amoral than most Western leaders. But I think it's a difference in degree, not in kind.
Thanks for the comments, Michael. I agree with some and want to respond to a few others.
Yes, Soviet citizens did grow their wealth (though the famines and purges might cancel out those gains; it's hard to calculate), but their wealth increased at a much slower rate when compared with the NATO allied countries. The philosopher king was an idea that I believe Communists championed; I did not mean that Plato's Republic is precisely represented by Communism.
The dichotomy between Western and Soviet ideals wasn't so much a factual respresentation of reality, as much as it was an attempt to get inside the psyche of the leadership in the West and the USSR in order to imagine how they see themselves and their adversary. It wasn't meant to be an objective analysis, but a perceptual analysis. This was not made clear in my video. I'll do better next time.
Thanks for the discussion.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Wow thanks for the reply Luke!
I appreciate the clarification on your points. From an analysis of Putin's psychological perspective, it makes more sense to me now. Sorry if I misunderstood some things. Overall, I really enjoyed the video. Please keep up the good work!
@@polyMATHY_Luke also, USSR didn't put the whole world to their knees. They did have a many serfs to do cheap work. So, the potential of growth was smaller
Lebensraum does not mean "breathing room", it means "living space".
There is more than one translation for this term. I speak German and English; I used that translation very deliberately.
@@polyMATHY_Luke very impressive, that you speak German as well.
I guess you could interpret it as "breathing room", but it's not exactly a literal translation.
@@realasaster Context matters. Literal translations are more important if you need a more legalistic translation. Contextual translations are better if you're trying to convey the meanings and implications.
Excellent video, Luke! 👍
My first comment was before I had watched it trhough, great upload, peace and freedom.
I would also add that Russia has reason not to take NATO's "defensive nature" seriously because NATO has intervened offensively in countries before (such as in Yugoslavia and Libya), and because if Ukraine joins NATO, it could invoke article 5 against Russia, even before the invasion (Donbas and Crimea).
I don't know much about NATO interventions, but still it does not justifies the invasion
@@darktip Just like Luke, I'm not trying to say Russia is justified. I'm only pointing out that Russia has reason to be scared of NATO.
@@_MysticKnight Yeah, you're right. But who knows what's on Putin's twisted mind..
@@_MysticKnight Nato intervened in Serbia to stop a (real) genocide.
@@Maxjeix01 That's besides the point.
It's interesting to know your point of view about the subject! (Am I the only one who is finding the volume a little low?)
Is it? I appreciate this feedback. I’ll see about that next time.
@@polyMATHY_Luke My feedback - referring to American films trivialises what is otherwise a very grown up discussion, and detracts from your point when viewing this from outside America.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Further feedback, you miss entirely the duplicity of the western powers when they did far worse than this to Iraq and Afghanistan among countless other places
i realy like the "poly" aspect of your channel. and your erudition and ability to clearly convey ideas and concepts. this one piece is easily comprehensible and on point. litiishiiem, or luk. benigne!
The algorithm gets it right for once. Excellent analysis - subbed
Welcome
Well there is a point between being paranoid about someone will invade you, and someone is killing your people and limiting their right in neighborhood country. Go honestly do the report on Yemen, they really deserve more attention than any country right now.
and to my shame the Tory government encourage the sale of arms to states so the Yemeni children can suffer. I don't elect them but they do it in my name
Thank you for providing us with a well-thought analysis of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, Luke. A lot of my friends wish to know more about what is being discussed on the news, and I find that your videos are perfectly fit for such a purpose. If I come across any person who is confused about this matter, I'll make sure to direct them to your videos.
That’s very kind. I hope I represented the situation accurately
Wise analysis, integral, and Spiral Dynamics stage Yellow. Kudos.
Very thoughtful video. And, of course, one can never overestimate the wisdom of Quark.
Actually the security concerns aren’t the main reason why the USSR dissolution was a catastrophe. First and foremost it was economic fall, people lost their savings and livelihoods, many people left displaced unable to travel freely as they used to because each country declared independence, it wasn’t gradual transition that nobody was ready for.
Catherine the Great was German. I think it’s important to note that there weren’t many ethnic Russians rulers in Russia many were from Europe that didn’t even speak Russian language, so that so called “paranoia” stems from the loss of control over your own land.
So... There's no difference if Russian Souvereign is ethnic Russian or not, because there was 2 much more important issues in face of the religion and mentality (because question of nationality isn't question only about blood and genome).
And French, Spanish and British Royal Families aren't "French, Spanish and British" too...
@@AlexanderSergeevRus This can clarify a few things. The majority of people these days do not dedicate that much time to religion.
ruclips.net/video/JrMiSQAGOS4/видео.html
Luke! I teach international relations and this was a fantastic summary of the historical and geopolitical motivations behind current Russian foreign policy! Great job, sir! Bravo!
Thank you, Jonathan! I appreciate that.
Thanks for your informative summary on an extremely complex issue
Thank you, Dude. I appreciate the support
This was amazing, thank you. Perfect clips and use of Star Trek. More please!
Thanks, Dustin
Wow! This is such an incredible analysis. There haven’t been many people to take both sides and explain them concurrently, and definitely not one that I’ve seen that is so in depth. Well worth the wait of an extra day🤠
That’s very nice of you to say. I think this video comes up short in a few places, but I’m glad if it’s a reasonable summary.
@@polyMATHY_Luke you’re too hard on yourself! You make consistently incredible content from a very educated, professional, and kind-hearted place, and it never ceases to impress me😄
Russia's current foreign policy is influenced in part by the west's anti-Russian sentiment.
Since the beginning, Western Europe has despised Russia.
During the Imperial period, they despised Russia.
During the Soviet era, they despised Russia.
and obviously, now, the west despises Russia.
The only time when everyone loved Russia was when it fell apart following the demise of the Soviet Union.
The 1990s in Russia was a period when people finally got a taste of democracy and free speech, but there was also insecurity, scarcity, and civil wars with Chechens. Most Russians saw the 1990s as a time when the government had dissolved and no longer cared about its people. Yeltsin was a western darling, but Russians saw him as a sellout and an alcoholic.
The tumultuous 1990s saw a rapid change in Putin's statist policies in Russia. That people would prefer to give up their civil freedoms in exchange for a welfare state
The West has been slso enchanted by Russia throughout history. In recent times, they've been giving the benefit of the doubt to Russia's unchanging geopolitical behavior and largely dismissing warnings from Russia's direct neighbors
Define "despise"
Russia has only themselves to blame for that though
@@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820 Well to be honest Japanese don't seem to despise US for nuking their cities due to mistranslation but yes.
Define despise. Remember there was a time when Russian Empire, British Empire and Republic of France were allied altogether.. there was a time when British, Germany, and Russian royal were of one blood.
Can you do part 2 on the economic issues?
Wow Luke! This is an amazing video! I never knew you like geopolitics too! Amazing
Ευχαριστώ
@@polyMATHY_Luke Παρακαλώ! 🤩
Ελπίζω σύντομα και για ένα βίντεο για τη δική μας περιοχή, τα Βαλκάνια, και την πονεμένη ιστορία τους.
Nice one, Luke. I agree on a lot of points, particularly Putin's 19th century approach to politics, as well as the EU being a geopolitical miracle. I do have to mention that I can't particularly get behind the idea that the West naively expects Putin to follow its rules, though. The Iraq war has been criticised as illegal by experts and UN authorities, which creates a negative precedent that has been used by Putin as a justification. Not to mention the NATO involvement in Yugoslavia. I do not view Putin's actions as justified, but your stance and that of many other people make it sound as if all the pretexts for his invasion of Ukraine are based on projection or misunderstanding. I am all for the rule of law and the peace between nations, but there's a legal theory that laws only truly matter when they're kept. The abuse of international law by certain western nations has only fueled the paranoia of the Russian leadership, pushing them to extreme actions. Reminder that Putin was perfectly happy with indirectly influencing Ukrainian politics through oligarchical connections before 2014, making it unlikely that he was willing to go to war over Ukraine. The free world has its upsides, but as you said, it is far from perfect, and the mistakes it has made certainly contributed to the current situation.
NATO involvement in Yougoslavia? You mean Serbian making war on all its neighbors? NATO intervene only nit to let happen again what happened under the eyes of UN in Bosnia. Yougoslavia went through an internal collapse because of Serbian authocratic and genocidial regime. NATO did not invade any country it did respected self determination this is true but it is true that self determination and democracy s also on the base of western world doctrine. Something Putin may have better asked for the 2 separatist republics in Ukraine rather then commiting a genocide. Dontesk di vote 70% for Ukraine independence after the fall of the Ussr. I believe Putin did not care about people's will otherwise he could have just asked a UN to protect and monitor a referendum to join Rusia without Ukrainians or Russian pressure or any military.
@@peshkaderri What you're saying is beside the point. I don't really think the morality of the NATO bombing of Serbia really matters, because that's highly debatable and subjective. Their involvement was, however, against international law. Disrespecting international law gives other states/alliances the incentive to do so as well. Similarly, the majority of Crimeans support Russia, but the West ignores this and says the annexation was against international law. That's true, but there is a double standard there. NATO's actions emboldened Putin and gave him a pretext to do the same thing they had already done before.
@@Jtiger987 I do not agree with many NATO intervention. But the local peoples that were freed by NATO are very thankful in the Balkans. Nothing like chechens or Ukrainians or Georgians and former soviet republics when it comes to Russia "Special operations" There were several internation laws not respected by Serbs as well by Nato some of which are in self reference paradox conflict including self determination and territorial rights. This being said it was nit NATO who anexed their territory but their former people wanted to separate. Morally I think even if there were geoplitical interest there were a lot of life saved from NATO, I get it there are external cynical view of peoples being a propriety or territorial right of some sort of imperialist mentality like Serbia and Russia. It is impossible to fully respect laws but Russia never pushed for a free referendum of Crimea. I'm sure if it had thinks would have been less bloody and easier, doubt it even cared about Crimea people knowing how many time it has deported civilians from there. . As well NATO has done many other dirty wars i can't deny that and mostly because of older and in some sense still present conflicting interest of its members. Just consider France political colonial interest pushed both US siding against population will and same in Libia. Other times it has been UK pushing and so on. Most of this decisions were not really democratic but I still believe the world is more safe if not in the hands of authocratic regimes since western world do have a drive to at least decrease enlarging state borders and I hope in the near future to slow down also imperialistic political interference. Russia is still in the middle ages when it comes to this.
I don't understand why russia is "afraid" of NATO. NATO has never gotten into a conflict with a nuclear power. Current events demonstate they want to avoid it e.g. no "no fly zone" over Ukraine. Putin must be concerned with having successfull democracies on his doorstep. This time there isn't even a wall to tear down.
Anyway about NATO bombings in Yugoslavia -well, to be fair Yugoslavia wasn't even exist anymore at this point- ... people seems to forget the events preceding this: massacre in Srebrenica, bombing of Vukovar (in Croatia), and go back even more to when Slobodan Milosevic incited Serb nationalism which sparked ethnocentrism throughout the Yugoslavia & started the war.
This is a very interesting video Luke, geopolitics is a very complicated subject and unfortunately in the era of social media people tend to oversimply things. For me there are two factors that mainly show how Putin thinks : a) political tradition and b) the security factor. When the Russian Empire was formed in the early 18th century it was formed as a centralised state where authority rested solely on the hands of the Czar. This created a deep tradition of one-man rule that was never really abandoned. Even the constitution that non bolshevik forces proposed during the 1917 Revolutions envisioned a strong presidency. When the USSR collapsed Russia lost its historic opportunity to create new democratic institutions because of the economic collapse that the shock therapy brought. People identified democracy with economic instability and as such were happy with a strongman like Putin in charge. And that brings as to the security factor. As you have said Russia wanted a sphere of influence that was suddenly lost after 1991. This immediately brought a fear to the ruling class that was only exacerbated after NATO's eastern expansion. At the same time this ruling class is made by ex KGB agents (the soviet deep state) that never had any love for the western way of doing things. Despite that I believe that Russia can evolve into a modern democratic nation just like Germany. It's not going to be easy but Russians start realizing how their system is really working and are against the war. After all history shows us examples of countries with autocratic traditions to evolve to democracies. Lastly as an ethnic Greek I can confirm that we don't always understand the difference in meaning between ancient and modern greek words.
It's a shame that it's completely inaccurate description of the USSR that ignores colonialism.
Your little spiel has not been born out by events.
God bless free Russia!
Excellent video! Everyone should watch this!
Great video.
18:00 A minor glossological remark: in modern Greek there is still the distinction between «δουλειά» (work) and «δουλεία» (slavery), so this specific example is perfectly understandable. However, in general your argument holds true.
Άρα, είμαστε όλοι δούλοι.
Ótimo vídeo Luke. Parabéns. Recomendo que assistam mais de uma vez.
This a a very well presented e explanation and insight. Thank You!
Thanks for watching
Great Job explaining the intricacies of geopolitical conflicts regarding Russia.
You seemed to have understood the basic motivations. I grew up in the USSR. Where I was conscripted and forced to train as an artillery officer. Served three years on and off in Afghanistan till the end of the war. In 1991 I and others deserted to join the rest of Lithuania in restoring independence.
I had and lost Russian friends in Afghanistan. I have Russian friends now. Friends or not I know there was a reality in Russia that would see them betray me for survival. The only rationalisation I ever found was an old saying " a Slave's greatest wish is to be a Master " - " to be the one holding the whip ".
Thank you for this great analysis. However, I have two questions. One is about the past. If NATO is a defensive block not targeted against Russia, why they did not just accept Russia in 1990s or early 2000s? For what I know, Yeltsin and even Putin proposed this idea, but NATO wasn't too enthusiastic about it.
The second question is what do you think is the future of NATO? It seems that Ukraine and some Eastern European NATO members are terribly disappointed in the ability of the alliance to protect them. They may start looking for protection somewhere else.
Thanks for the comment. Very good questions. Additionally, the USSR also asked to join NATO in the 1950s, but wasn’t accepted. I think one of the reasons is that NATO, which requires unanimous acceptance of new members, only wanted pro-democratic governments. Moreover, integrating with NATO means using NATO standard equipment, thus a huge overhaul of all the weapons systems and fighting techniques, and that would have been very difficult for Russia, assuming it even wanted to do so. As for the future, from my little perspective such as it is, NATO alliance seems strong and deeply committed to the allies in the east at this time.
@@polyMATHY_Luke in the 50s it was pretty clear, I think, that Stalin's proposal was pure hypocrisy. But in the 90s Russia really was a pro-democratic (even if not yet democratic) country. I remember the first years of Perestroika and that spirit of collective search for new values, for truth, for new principles of life. Then, at some point, we took a wrong turn that finally led us to fascism. It would be totally immoral to blame the West, but I can't stop thinking that they treated Eastern European countries differently. Bulgaria, but not Ukraine? Turkey, but not Russia? I admit that I'm not aware of formal requirements to member countries. OTOH, I never heard of these requirements (including equipment standardization) being the only thing blocking Russia's accession.
@@dmitriminaev To join nato you have to satisfy some specific points relative to democracy and economic development. Russia has never satisfied all of them
The formal requirements for member states are probably open to interpretation but article 2 mentions the the members' obligation to "contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions", and apparently this has traditionally been seen as the necessity of being a "free", democratic country.
I also remember the discussion about Russia as a possible member in the 90s but there was a lot of uncertainty at the time as to which way Russia would take, and for a defensive alliance it is crucial that its members are on a path of stable development. I think it was regarded as a very insecure gamble at the time.
This does not equal Russophobia -- it also has to do with the mere size of the applicant. Smaller countres like Bulgaria and Romania were easier to accept although their democracies were not deep-rooted at the time, because it was assumed that membership would push them in the right direction under the influence of the majority, the existing members.
I think it is also important to appreciate that any organisation cannot bite off more than it can chew. It is a very drawn-out process and a lot of hard work to integrate new members, and even if ideally an organisation should accept anyone who qualifies, there is only so much it can do in a given time. In that sense integrating new members always blocks the integration of more new members. Why not Ukraine? Probably because NATO was already busy integrating Romania and Bulgaria. Why not Russia? Maybe (apart from the above) because Turkey is already a large member which is in danger of relapsing into autocracy.
Because russia wanted for nato only for destroy it. Isn’t it clear? They started occupying moldova after collapsing ussr! Why you talking
Just finished the third of Peter Zeihan’s books so a lot of this was very familiar to me, glad to see this perspective that I think tells us a lot about the present situation gaining wider attention
Aah Peter Zeihan, the court jester of the new democrat led political elite.
The rest of the world is watching the hypocricies of the west, and will extract their pound of flesh.
This was the first time I've seen another prominent-ish person agree with Zeihan's take that the war is due to securing borders and plugging those gaps, everyone else has agreed with it
Interesting story. And also beautifully narrated.
This is the best synthesis of the geopolitical world orders I have heard. And I really appreciated that you kept the Russian people separate from the Kremlin, and recalled the transformation possible in countries like Germany and Japan. I'm curious how Russia's geography "changing" due to climate change and their land and ports getting warmer will affect this as well. Another great book to understand geography as a crystal ball into the future behavior of countries is "Prisoners of Geography" by Tim Marshall
This is very nice of you to say. I appreciate the book recommendation; I've added it to the description.
Yes, Russia might benefit quite a bit from a warmer world. In the original version of the video, which I cut at the last minute, I had a long section about how Russia got Germany hooked on its natural gas, and how Germany shunned nuclear power in favor of gas. Maybe I'll make a future video on it.
keeping russian people from the Kremlin is a big mistake. They’ve always intertwined and they will be. Around 70% of russians support this war.
Also, is putin the only dictator in the history of that country?
We Ukrainians know better and will never be tricked into thinking that russian government does not represent their population and vice versa.
The whole national idea of russians is to dominate the neighboring countries and be “number 1”.
That’s why they start a war in freaking Moldova (not during Putin btw) to “defend russian speaking people but they don’t give a f about their own people living beyond poverty in Siberia with no gas…
But you do you, westerners, keep believing in good russians
@@dmytrodelen because you do not hear from those who do not. They are just not loud about it, maybe they feel threatened that they could get fined, ridiculed or otherwise punished. Like people who were not fond how the pandemic management went in the world.
@@polyMATHY_Luke So you saying that it is only the beginning? That Russia will continue to invade other countries and so called civilized democratic countries must stop Russia? Do you think you are so clean, western countries so pure, that you don't lie? And on the other hand Russia is paranoic country? Nevermind. But Congratulations! You added your part to the beginning of the WW3! And just like people of other countries tell that ordinary russians are responsible of the dead ukrainian people, You will be responsible of dead people across the World.
Your concern for Ukraine IS FAKE. Your only concern is to humiliate Russia and if possible take over its natural resources. The best thing would be to break Russia into as many insignificant little states as you Anglo-Saxons created out of the Spanish Empire. The Russians know that. No US-American has the moral strength to speak of peace, justice or freedom. The USA is the scourge of the universe: you are the most hypocritical and harmful nation in the world. Talk about all the disasters you US-Americans commit every day. You cannot hide your hatred of Russia. Your Russophobia is blatant. And, on the other hand, so is your Hispanophobia. Слава России! Слава героям! Да здравствует Россия!
I think that you identified one of the major causes of the conflict: the competing views of the rule of law and the rule of man. Might I suggest that the contemporary western ideal of the rule of law goes back to this ideal in the Roman Republic. The concept of the rule of law was central to the republic. This marked the Romans apart from many of the other nations. Even under the empire the emperor himself was theoretically only a magistrate of the republic and had to make at least a pretense of respect for the rule of law. The better emperors actually showed great concern for the law, e.g. Justinian. This is in marked contrast to many of the other great empires which viewed the law as a means of control for the state. This view of the rule of law survived after the fall of Rome and would be revived in full force with the American Revolution and the growth of democracy that followed. We owe so much of our modern world to the roots to be found in ancient Rome.
I teach history in High school and I always tell my students "geography is the queen, the most powerful piece"
Very interesting point of view, I never tought in terms of russian ideocracy. That's the reason that could make impossible a negociation. Very nice video
can u make a video about romanian and moldovian?
That’s a great idea
Very well made video. I came in looking for blood as i do in any other video of this kind that i see but you covered your bases extremely well. And you are correct. Wanting defensible location for borders does not mean that you should expand into your neighbours for them. Especially when you have nukes and normal warfare is either way useless against you
Thanks for the kind words.
“Freedom has many difficulties. And democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in.”
This is the best opinion I have heard lately.
Wasn't expecting this from your channel, I have to say
Great video!
As someone who’s wife was from a russian speaking family in the Ukraine, they were never under threat. No one ever in Ukraine was rude or disrespectful to me let alone her. The simple facts are putin felt threatened by Nato and EU expansion. His reflexive and reactionary response to attack Ukraine before it could join one of the two shows that. Also how fanciful his idea that like in 2014 his “little green men” would sweep in and simply take it shows the huge disconnect he has from reality.
Keep supporting Ukraine everyone, the war isn’t and won’t be over for a while. We spent over two trillion dollars on Afghanistan. Supporting Ukraine will require near the same level of support and that’s just to win the war.
Anyhow it’s a good video. Very clearly Explaining world view of both sides even it’s hypothetically 👏🙏😊
Video idea: Learn Old Church Slavonic and try and speak to native Slavic speakers
Great idea
@@polyMATHY_Luke The only thing with that idea is that Old Church Slavonic is still commonly spoken in various Slavic Orthodox churches, at least during the liturgy, much like Ecclesiastical Latin in Roman Catholic churches before Vatican II.
OK, another problem is that Old Church Slavonic was a basis of all the Yugoslavian in the South to I-don't know-know-far-north Slavic tongues, so you would need to make a series of videos, at least.
@@davidweihe6052 | Even if church slavonic is based on a south slavic language, namely old Bulgarian, western and eastern slavs can understand as much as modern south slavs can, which is actually not as much as one might expect, but still.
I’m glad you mentioned the Tartar invasion in the aftermath of the breakup of Kievan Rus. The fall is so often neglected in historical overviews like this, but I think it’s so important because it lays the foundation for the current state of consciousness in Russia. A lot that adds to the xenophobic suspicions has happened since then.
Thanks again.
I didn’t make very much of a mention of it. I should have talked about it more really.
@@polyMATHY_Luke, I hope you don’t beat yourself up too badly over this. I’m glad and grateful it’s mentioned at all. People who have not heard of it will investigate it if they’re interested enough. You’ve done an invaluable service to them and to the general viewership just by mentioning it.
Many thanks!
it's not like we didn't give Russia a reason to think West does not respect international laws.. like when we bombed Yugoslavia in 99 after UN diapproved the military action, just 2 years before in 97 we had signed the Founding Act with Russia which was about "let's respect UN decisions alright?" ..
So, we should have just continued to let the Serbs to kill the Kosovars.
That is why many Russians don't believe that NATO is a defensive organisation. Serbia didn't attack a NATO country and still NATO bombed the capital of the former Yugoslavia
@@stischer47 we can't make rules and then break them when we see fit.. who are we? the police of the world? UN should have been the police of the world
@@stischer47 that's exactly what Putin says today about "Ukrainians killing the people of Donbass".
@@stischer47 most of the casualties were Albanians lmao
A beautiful summary Luke. As you say, there's lots to elaborate on, but this is a stonking primer.
Very kind of you to say.
ciao Luke, scusa il disturbo, ho notato che in Elden Ring cè un canto in latino, purtroppo penso sia un unica frase/abbastanza corta che si ripete, fammi sapere se può interessarti posso uppare un video che ho registrato, ma penso sia facile da reperibile su youtube comunque, dico x una "reaction" o per vedere quanto sia corretto, Elden Ring è ancora recente e "parecchio in voga", un abbraccio ^^/
Grazie, troverò
@@polyMATHY_Luke mi dispiace che youtube non mi abbia mostrato la notifica della tua risposta, vorrei scrivere il testo solo x sollecitare la tua curiosità, si, come dicevo sono poche parole purtroppo:
O locus ille
Vetus condum num deminuit
Nos destinantem matribus
Nunc fiunt turbas
Plorabimus
Lacrimabimusque
Sed nemo nos consulatur
Aureum cui irascebaris
è poca roba purtroppo ma sentire il canto è qualcosa di molto carino, un abbraccio /
I genuinely didn't expect such deep understanding from West.
This is very kind of you to say.
Your analysis is excellent. The ‘lebensraum’ angle is interesting. Although I think that you could also pick ‘Manifest Destiny’ and the westward push in 19th century America to acquire more land and the dispossession of Native Americans. I suspect Putin has some version of Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine in mind. He probably sees Eastern Europe and Central Asia as his backyard, rather like the US does Latin America.
Oh certainly, the US’s expansion was also motivated on geopolitical grounds, and had a flimsy excuse for it.
Interesting... After year and half do you you think the same way? )
Today I give Russia the benefit of the doubt much less than I did in the video.
Excellent
Literally better than Caspian Report and other self-proclaimed geopolitical "analysts" and "experts". Seriously outstanding work Luke. You truly are an aristocrat of the soul and a hyper-intellectual. Thank you. Mulțumesc.
Mulțumesc mult și ție. I think you give me too much credit. Personally I really like Caspian Report’s videos. And I’m no expert; I just like to read. I’m grateful if you found the video agreeable.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Humble as always. Trust me, I'm not giving anyone any credit unless it's fully deserved. I'm a real hard ass and sob, I tend to be exigent and extremely demanding. You see, I'm a historian and former archaeologist irl. But I've also studied political sciences (incl. geopolitics, international relations, political philosophy, etc) for years back at the university. It's one of my many peripheral interests in which I also happen to be qualified. So I really don't think I'm giving you too much credit. I've been following your channels for a long time now. You are "legit". Light years ahead of all the pop historians and analysts here on RUclips. And I admire some of the qualities and virtues you possess, for example your patience, which I entirely lack. I couldn't make a video like yours without it being impenetrably academic and then erupt like a volcano when the uninitiated don't understand it. Haha.
Nah, about same.
@@decem_sagittae i'm curious, what is it that you dislike about Caspian Report?
@@003mohamud a lot of things. Mainly the reductionism, essentialization, superficiality... I don't want to fuel this fire, but he's just a half-baked dilettante. Also his history videos perpetuate historical myths instead of dispelling them, are ridden with factual errors and sometimes border the sensational. 😕
Fantastic video with in my opinion very intelligent and accurate observations!
I agree that there are several parallels between Putin and Hitler. The strategies are very similar (starting with small "bites" in order to gauge responses and then eventually launching the big offensive).
In Germany, we are in a strange spot now. Our traditionally moderate and reluctant government suddenly starts to invest quite a lot of money in defence (as we are still being hit by Covid, trying to recover from overdependence on Russian gas, enduring a transitional period in the course of a prolonged "tech switch" towards renewable energy, we do question where this money suddenly comes from when our previous government tried to save money whereever possible ;)).
Many international responses to the investment are overwhelmingly positive ("Finally, Germany takes responsibility"). Some are concerned ("If even Germany starts to rearm, things are indeed serious...").
I do support a defiant and strong position in this specific case. Appeasement is not an option unfortunately. I do have a vague idea about Hitler and that does give me a vague idea about Putin. So I would agree with the second sentiment and be cautious about the first one.
By the way, very inspiring take on the European Union. I completely agree. Hopefully, the EU will be able to overcome recent setbacks and eventually turn into a great example of mutual international cooperation and a moderating geopolitical factor to slightly contain the more belligerent US. And yeah, apparently we need a working army in order to do that (More EU forces beans less US force means fewer US wars). ;(
Danke für den Kommentar.
Very interesting, definitely worth watching a second time to perhaps better grasp the complexities you describe (very logical en effet) that may well have been brewing for centuries and continue to do so, in the Russian State's mind-s.. the word "Lebensraum" in this context makes me just shudder, but it is the(souligné) analogy.. it's so tragically sad..
Et juste pour le dire : avec des réflexions et recherches si poussées, Luke, tu as vraiment bien choisi le nom de ta chaîne ! Peace for Ukraine Peace for the World..
Merci!
This is a great video!
There is only one thing to add, the European Union has nothing to do with France and Germany never being at war again. In 1870, France and Germany were each other's biggest economic partners, having interconnected economies doesn't prevent war. The thing that made "war impossible" wasn't the EU, it was nuclear power: what would be the point of attacking a country if it had the ability to completely destroy yours in one strike?
I really like your channel and I admire your knowledge about such various things, and while I widely agree with you on the russian side of your analyse, I feel a bit more uncomfortable on the western side of it. Western countries such as USA, France, UK or others don’t follow that much international laws and use them when it benefits them. We can use for example the war in Irak in 2003, the different American blocus against Cuba or Venezuela, which go against international law and creating terrible conditions of life for the populations there or yet France selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt or even Russia, which are all dictatures and used in wars such as in Yemen, Lybia, Syria or even Ukraine. We can even talk about the Israelo-Palestinian conflict and the everlasting support of the USA for Israel, which is once again not conform to ONU resolutions. Just to say, the west is as imperialist as Russia or China
I appreciate the time you took to write your comments; thanks. The video was meant to convey perception more than fact check those perceptions. I did not adequately clarify that during the video.
That is as it may be, but NATO is INDEED a defensive alliance. None of the American wars have been NATO affairs. The only one NATO became involved in was Afghanistan, because the USA was attacked by al Qaeda, and the Taliban was harbouring Osama bin Laden. NATO refused to support the invasion of Iraq or any of the others. Even someone as paranoid as Putin can seriously believe NATO, with all its mutual mistrust and animosity, is somehow plotting a surprise invasion of Russia. It's utter rubbish.
@@mikicerise6250 NATO attacked Libya
I’m so happy you’ve started dipping your feet into Geopolitics! I know youve been wanting to expand the content of the channel, to be more in line with its name, for awhile now and am pleased that youve begun on such a high note!
I do have a few objections though.
Nato is not a purely defensive alliance. This isnt just a russian talking point. I would argue that it has only every been employed offensively. Just look at Libya.
Germany was able to succeed, in part, because the US pumped massive amounts of capital into rebuilding it. Russia, in contrast, was economically raped by American business interests in the wake of the USSR’s collapse. Maybe if Russia had been treated with similar benevolence, things would not be as they are now.
Lastly, I think it is important to keep in mind that Russia wants a multi polar world. Before 1991, it had an equal seat at the international table with the US. Likewise, the US wants a unipolar world, in which only it can invade and destroy sovereign nations, like Iraq and Libya. US and NATO opposition to Russia’s war is not based on moral outrage: it is based upon the conviction that only America and its allies can use the cruelty and callousness of war to pursue its interests. I think any discussion of Ukraine must mention this.
Overall all though, thanks for the video! I hope you continue to make more :)
Thanks for the comment. The NATO part was too glib; I have submitted an edit for it. My point of contrast was that NATO does not alter the borders or countries or annex territory, in contrast to the USSR and its Allie’s.
There was a great deal more about the points you touched on here, but I cut them for length and relevance.
@@polyMATHY_Luke ah gotcha. Thanks for the reply! And just because i do not mention the extent to which i agree, doesn’t mean that i dont; i really valued your perspective, and do genuinely look forward to more
@@Nyingmaba I appreciate the broader persective. Thanks again
Thank you very much for sharing your point of view ( i just have watched RUclips channel in French " le trouble fait", the video about the same topic, very interesting too).
🕊️Si vis Pacem para... Pacem 🎼🌻
Well done.
I like how you covered your bases by calling this video a simplistic view. You say in the beginning how important geography is to geopolitics. I wish you stuck to that line of thinking beyond just describing the North European Plain. "Worldview" doesn't account for everything; it's often a side effect of a geographic or economic reality, and it can look like the cause of its effects after the fact.
Ukraine has always been one of the countries hardest hit by Russian aggression. During the Imperialist Age, and most definitely during the Soviet Era. And not just by military aggression, but also by economic, cultural, and linguistic aggression. Case in point: As you may know, in the Russian language when someone is in a country, they would say в стране ("в России," "в Америке," etc). However, for a long time a lot of them, when they were in Ukraine, they would say на Украине, which literally translates to "on Ukraine." As in "stepping on Ukraine." It even seeped into the Ukrainian language, as "на Україні." This is a mistake that a lot of learners of both languages often make. And a lot of Ukrainians *will* take offense at this, even if it is said as an innocent mistake.
All this being said... It is important to remember that Putin, the Russian government, and the Russian military do *NOT* speak for every single Russian person on this earth. Or even living in Russia. Anymore than Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian military speak for every Ukrainian. I have both Russian and Ukrainian friends. And above all else... I do not want to see any of them hurt by the fighting; in any way shape, or form.
What a manipulation. Ukraine can't be a victim, since she was an equal participant in Russian imperialism. Ukrainians in Imperial times considered part of the Russian nation. And if you know russian, then you definitely need to know the etymology of the word Ukraine. It's "Borderland", cuz of it we use not "in" but "on". Gtfo
Ngl, it feels strange Luke is doing a geopolitics video. I'm just so used to the linguistic videos
Can you explain the palianytsia shibboleth?
I've always wondered why Russian wouldn't at least follow the Chinese model of economic development for safety and security. Russia never tried to make their model attractive to its neighbours.
Because Russia doesnt have the wealth to bribe their neighbors like China.
When you said that u r studied geopolitics I didn’t trust you. But after watching the video I’m sure you do.) Such a difficult things explained so simply. Bravo Luke and thank you :)
Thanks Ivan. I think my video is far too simple, it I’m glad if you liked it.
@polymathy. In further reading list, it’s “Next 100 Years” by George Friedman, not 10 (probably a typo). I
Would add his other book as well “Revenge of Geography”. It’s excellent!
Solid video! Well done!
Thanks! Actually he has two books, one which is “the next decade” whose title I remembered incorrectly
Great video! Just wanted to point out at 18:17 that δουλεία also means ‘slavery’ in Modern Greek.
Exactly. Depends on where we put the accent.