Listening to Vijay reminds me how impoverished the field of IR is and what it actually should be like. IR should be premised first and foremost on respect and discussion of international law (which is what Vijay does), instead of machinations of power-projection based on loose and essentialist categories like "civilizational conflict", which is what IR essentially boils down to This is important because when you are trained in either the latter, or empty ideas of "western liberal internationalism" (in which the tag of genocide is conveniently used or concealed based on a country's relations with the west), you get people like Kimani and the host as well as some of the audiences, all rhetoric and no substance. The solid basis of factual discussion should be what are the elements of international law and whether they are being honoured or not (and by whom and for what reasons), and then you take on from there. Several disciplines which deal with such essential subject-matters are almost eternally compromised because of these imperialist frameworks which cannot stand any critical scrutiny.
I don't understand Martin. He just wants to condemn Russia for the act of war and refuses to analyze the history and the circumstances. How good does it make to vote condemnation for Russia's act if you don't condemn the reasons that forced Russians into the war. This is playing the game of those who pull the strings
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Amazing Vijay Prashad as always
So much to comment. Suffice to say Vijay Prashad shines with poetic "facts" throughout and that Mr. Former Kenya continues to "carry water".
Good conversation.I am from Kenya 🇰🇪, kudos tu Amb Martin Kimani. I also like the insightful opinion from VJ.
Listening to Vijay reminds me how impoverished the field of IR is and what it actually should be like. IR should be premised first and foremost on respect and discussion of international law (which is what Vijay does), instead of machinations of power-projection based on loose and essentialist categories like "civilizational conflict", which is what IR essentially boils down to
This is important because when you are trained in either the latter, or empty ideas of "western liberal internationalism" (in which the tag of genocide is conveniently used or concealed based on a country's relations with the west), you get people like Kimani and the host as well as some of the audiences, all rhetoric and no substance. The solid basis of factual discussion should be what are the elements of international law and whether they are being honoured or not (and by whom and for what reasons), and then you take on from there. Several disciplines which deal with such essential subject-matters are almost eternally compromised because of these imperialist frameworks which cannot stand any critical scrutiny.
Neo Unkill Tom is no match for the historian Vijay Prashad
I don't understand Martin. He just wants to condemn Russia for the act of war and refuses to analyze the history and the circumstances. How good does it make to vote condemnation for Russia's act if you don't condemn the reasons that forced Russians into the war. This is playing the game of those who pull the strings
Maybe provide innovative ideas could solve few problems
Hats off to Vijay Prashad for his insights.
this martin kimani speaks like a CIA asset