From the end of the Cold War to the war in Ukraine - The New World (Dis)Order EP 3 with Alex Stubb
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 окт 2023
- Episode 3 on Chapter 1
Episode three of "The New World (Dis)Order", starts with an anecdote from 1990 when Alex Stubb was a political science student at Furman University in South Carolina, USA. The Berlin wall had just come down and the world was changing.
The episode covers the first part of Alex Stubb's book on the order of power. Based on chapter 1, Alex analyses how the world has moved from order to disorder, discussing developments from the end of the cold war until the start of the war in Ukraine.
Professor Alex Stubb, Director of the Florence School of Transnational Governance, is currently on leave of absence to focus on his campaign as candidate in the Finnish presidential elections. Stubb is working on an upcoming book on changes in the captivating world of geopolitics, in which he sets the scene for his exploration of the shifts in power relations worldwide.
Subscribe to this channel to learn more about the topics discussed and to share your feedback.
- In memory of President Martti Ahtisaari (1937-2023), Nobel Peace laureate -
Follow us on social media to stay up to date:
▶ Website: www.eui.eu/stg
▶ LinkedIn: / schoo. .
▶ X: / stgeui
▶ Instagram: / stgeui
Very interesting in its scope. As an expat American (presently in Ukraine) after the last few years, I frankly feel daunted that any of these non-"Western" (OECD) countries will get organised and end the cycle of impatient policy change. The swings between populism, authoritarian, socialists, strongmen dictators, etc reveal unrealistic expectations and an impatience with what it takes to develop an economy and a society. When people think that just mirroring, say, European policy means they'll end up with European prosperity in months or years, they miss what fundamentally makes nations different. It's disheartening how easy it is to get tens of millions of Russians believing BS about Nazis in Kyiv, or fear a threat of drag queens in kindergartens, and how difficult it is to get people to address corruption or look to themselves for their best solutions. We seem prone to taking what seems like the short-cut, but ends up being the road that circles back on itself time and again.
It is too bad you weren’t born in Greenville, South Carolina. Americans desperately need someone capable of holding an idea or two in his or her mind during the 2024 election. Our politics accurately reflects a world without order as we have politics with no rules, no honesty, no decency, and no principles beyond those that drive the acquisition of power.
Good luck with your project Alex.
I totally agree with you! Trump has destroyed a lot of mostly uneducated people's minds into believing that lying, force and stupidity is king in politics now! All for ME, and none for the others. It is US vs. THEM!
@@alexanderthegreat5519I agree Alexander, but I’d point out that the Left isn’t doing much better, and while I think that the current cabinet is more effective, simply because they aren’t having the fight against the Commander in Chief to get things done as was the case with Mr. Donald, who wouldn’t listen to his advisors, Mr. Biden is two decades past his prime and in a state of obvious physical and mental decline. At this point, I’m looking for a good third party candidate or writing in Frank Zappa again.
He just has to come back to Greenville occasionally and help move this along.
@@MrBlue-lr8ci Let's hope that the next administration will listen to reasonable voices and can find some way to promote stability, sanity, and rule of law in the international order.
Unfortunately not been able to put in practice even the own doctrine like in older times from 1900 until 1980's and what is left looks like Corporate America.
Nice to see ability for self-criticism and not just digging the heals and blame it on the others
Has there ever been a time when Russia was not attacking someone ? Apart from when they collapse but it does not take long before they get right back into warfare.
Something very wrong in the russian psyche, a delusion of grandeur on the world map.
Has there ever been a time when the US wasn't participating in conflicts or instigating them?
@@mpriymak Yes.
The west only assumes the Cold War ended. For Russia, it never did. The Soviet Union collapsing was but a lost battle. It was never about Communism vs Capitalism, but simply between two blocs vying for hegemony. The system they live by is but a means to an end to achieve this hegemony, as seen by China's adoption of capitalism. Autocracy is simply the most effective system for an underdog to impose unity internally to present a fight to the west. Soon we will see "anti-western" democracies, most likely from the African and South American continents (The global south).
it's what they love the most. they are barbaric and medieval and want nothing to do with modernity, so war is the default program that they fall back on time and again. can they ever change is the question. at this stage, it doesn't look good.
Good summary. Interests often do take priority over values. The West was keen to get involved in the former Yugoslavia or mix it up in oil-rich Middle East countries, but they did nothing but watch when Rwanda fell apart.
I agree. The west should pivot to strengthening ties with aligned countries, with values as the core criteria. How is it that a country like Turkey has a place in NATO before Sweden (strategic position aside)? Or China as the main US manufacturing partner before Mexico? The west should de-risk from non values aligned countries, we should have learned this lesson since the first oil crisis instigated by Middle East oil producing nations. Our blind willingness to do business with unfriendly ideologies has only empowered them into today's enemies (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.). The policy of the West going forward should be to seek self sustainability as a whole and to cut dependencies on countries like China or Saudi Arabia. We are walking into a global scale "Nord Stream/Germany/Russia" fiasco all over again. All those lives and money wasted trying to "build democracy" in Afghanistan could have been spent shoring up Ukraine's democracy. Where one country rejected and fought against democratization, Ukraine was begging for it. And now we are paying the price.
As a "Easterners", I will say this. No negotiations on values. Democracy and rule of law are fundamental and never to be traded away. Of course each country is on a different level when it comes to implicating those two. Be considerate of that. But don't abandon two core principles of human development.
Agreed. Why then has the EU had a trade embargo on Australia for more than 50 years if it believes in an association of democracies?
Great. Well articulated.
This is a masterclass in Geopolitics, thank you very much. One thing that's been on my mind for a while is the political shift to the right that we've seen both in European and US politics over time, what causes this shift, is it simply the fact that the generation that experienced WWII is fading, or more likely, other shifts and consequences of decisions made by politicians in the west. Also, how do you see this develop going forward, will it just increase and threaten many democracies, or will counter forces push back? I hope you touch on these things in your coming episodes. Thank you again...
My take is populist far right movements tend to arise in periods of intense economic and social uncertainty. The desire to impose a forceful order and of a strong messianic leader arises from a sense of chaos and uncertainty. Dissent and dialogue are seen as obstructing decisive action, and conservatism presents a comfortable "solid ground" to fall back on in the face of changing social dynamics.
@@arvypolancothis is when it goes mainstream, "tip the scales" to be in grip of power... sizable amount of people slowly growing voted for them past 20 some years(to have conservative, anti liberal, more local vs globalism view), but economics of regular person tipped finally them to majority in power. I see woke and pride as hegemony of left rampaging all over and went overboard which also played some part, but still sizable amount of people are fine with it. Then question mark are religious people, granted smaller minority in west, but still they have searched for their political home in many countries.
@@effexon True, though I see the concept of "woke/left rampaging" is just this generation's boogeyman. Religious/Right Wing/Conservatives will always see a threat in social movements that "break" with tradition. In the big picture, "wokeism" or pride have no significant influence on the economy or geopolitics, but they are convenient targets for populist and strongman leaders. Gypsies, Jews, hippies, "witches", gays, intellectuals, artists... they have all been scapegoats of conservatives fighting against social change. Conspiracy theories as political platforms, anti-intellectualism, disdain for sexual freedom, distrust of migrants; these are all born of conservative culture that by definition rejects change, and is supercharged in times of uncertainty giving rise to fascism. You see it in MAGA, a desperate, existential need to "go back" to "the better days".
This comment is bullshit.
Kiitos paljon! Very insightful
I appreciate all the information provided. Thank you with best regards.
I've been watching your analytical videos since you began to record yours.
thanks!
It would be useful to expand on values vs interest as these seem important drivers
Yet another very interesting insight, I can't wait for your book to come out! Instead of praising you endlessly, which you certainly deserve, I will dare to find one weakness of yours, and then I will make a small digression.
As for your "weakness", which could also be treated as your virtue, is the clear structuring of all your presentations. Why should we turn that virtue into weakness? It seems to me that reality itself imposes it on us. You rightly said yourself that things are messy in reality. Sometimes they don't fit into our way of understanding, they do not correspond rightly to the system of explanation we tend to develop. When we try to interpret reality by redefining it through a precise structure, I fear that we slowly move away from that reality, or we lose it, or we might give a less accurate interpretation. I'm not saying structure is irrelevant. Aristotle, to whom we are all indebted, would probably confirm this himself. But exaggeration in structuring could move us away from reality and leading us into moody waters of quasi-science ending up in ideology.
My digression refers to democracy as a single word/notion, which we all like to hear, praise and play with it, taking it for granted. Perhaps the understanding of different forms of democracy, its classification, structuring, discussion, re-evaluation, is necessary for a better understanding of the goals we want to achieve in our democratic society of the future. Let us return to a more structured understanding of democracy in order to choose or even develop its best variant possibly imagined.
Alex, as always, great job!
❤ very informative
Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content
I love these lectures 🤍
Alex, great work! Very interesting! Is it possible to fix our way to disorder using suggestions from Robert M. Gates? From an article: “The Dysfunctional Superpower
Can a Divided America Deter China and Russia?”
By Robert M. Gates
I'm with you so far. But it seems already that by the end of chapter 1 we are entering a period of chaos that is, almost by definition, unpredictable. Will there be predictions I wonder..
There will always be predictions... whether they are accurate is another matter. The challenges of climate change and AI are going to be the uncontrollable factors that prevent any reliable predictions going forward. Until we fully grasp how we will operate as a society in the midst of these crises, all plans will be ephemeral.
I am a similar age and found this riveting. Thank you.
An honest realistic unbias view of a wise scholar. All events take their courses based on the values and cultures of people. There is no such order which is universal or globle. Only death, suffering and impermanance are the universal order so to say. Thank you.
Congratulations, Mr. President.
Alex is lovely isn't he? he's presented a neutral analysis without laying blame. Not only do pointless invasions into Iraq insight hatred, so does weakness, Merkel and Obama funding Putin while he invades Syria and Crimea, these are all colossal errors which Alex will never mention, because staying relevant without offending previous leaders is the primary goal
I think there is an interesting discussion to be had here after the fall of USSR. During the Cold War it seems that nations and organizations have to cooperate _against_ what seems to be a universal competitor against their interests. After the Cold War, the West is free from its universal enemies, these nations and organizations are able to act according to their own interests, thus creating the internal conflicts of interests within the West. When new conflicts arise, there is no unity of Western action as there was before when cooperation was (more or less) mandatory, and so after a series of (natural) conflicts from 1991 to now we have seen a unilateral failure of conflict resolution the West did not expect, since we thought we were united. Would be interested to here your thoughts.
It was the CSCE that turned into the OSCE. I think I heard a misquote of the former acronym.
As someone who lives in the global south, I see Western hegimoy and China have been fueled by the wealth built through the exploitation of the global south, specifically Africa. The continent of Africa is fighting for economic freedom from the rest of the world as Africa exports cheap raw materials to counties that sell expensive products, made from said materials, on the global market. Our struggle for development has been sabotaged by our leadership and the war in Ukraine, as it has destabilised Africa... even though Africa had no part in starting the war!
The west has given Africa very little in exchange for the humans and minerals it has used from Africa since the beginning of globalization. Having done the reading on the topic of globalization, I believe globalization started with the British Empire, I'd say it was pretty global.
Hi @ericgardiner7715 how does the war in ukraine destablize africa. As an south east asian person, I would like to learn more about the world
@@bunyu6237 Throughout the cold war, wars were instigated in Africa by NATO and USSR backing opposing states, this is because they were fighting over which resources they would control in Africa, some things in Africa have gotten better since the cold war ended, but now as the Ukraine war heats up into a NATO Vs The East war, I believe the struggle for power in Africa will heat up as well. Weak countries in Africa that suffer from high fuel prices, high grain, high fertilizer costs, drought and starvation will result in popular uprisings/civil war. Perhaps if the people had food they would not revolt. No thanks to the EU blocking russian fertilizer donations to African countries.
The hope for me is that some African countries will take the opportunity in the chaos to take back ownership of their resources that have been fought over by external powers for hundreds of years.
African has been looted for hundreds of years by various powers. When counties in Africa gained their independence in the 1970- 1980s they were abandoned by their European owners like an empty shell, the visible looting of some things like slaves ended, but the looting of other things like minerals never ended. This is because pretty much all mining companies in Africa are owned by the colonisers, China being the majority holder, and all the minerals are exported as raw ore. This means that only a miniscule fraction of the value of the resources is paid in bribes to African leaders who permit the exploration.
One could argue that Russia's best interest was accepting its role as a regional power, but never a sustainable global hegemon. Its geographical challenges kept it hamstrung, and would always do so.
Russia's historical cultural values have often manifested most via strength during intense war, and cohesion via conquest of more land. Putin is attempting to, and mostly succeeding, to resonate with the Russian people's historical warrior ethos, even if that is against its long term better interests.
I didn't hear you discuss the value/interest dichotomy much here, but I'm interested when you touch on that in future chapters.
Cheers!
Interesting videos as always. However would suggest a correction about Britain being the first global power. Portugal was the first (and last) modern global empire 1415 to 1974/76: India, Brasil, Africa, Asia (e.g., Ilha Formosa (Taiwan), Macau) and of course, Portugal itself. It was the first European power to reach Japan, playing a decisive role for its unification, via introduction of firearms. Britain was the most successful modern European empire. Not the first and not the last.
I think that to some extent Fukuyama was right (and that free trade is the logical conclusion to prosperity without military attrition; something like the logical consequence of a repetitive game in game theory. From that to mutual dependency and a scenario of less probabilty of conflicst, there is a short road); But perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan were errors in American foreign policy that led the system to deteriorate previously.
And what do you imagine your role in this (dis)order will be if you become President? I really enjoy all of your videos, thank you for sharing.
Do you have any sections of the books covering women in politics and how that has shifted approaches to war, or regarding peace and stability? I’ve heard it said - could be the title of a book - that war will cease when men refuse to fight … Merkel? Marin? Arden? … is there any room for the female leaders in the book? Isn’t populism more about uneducated machismo and looking big … fear of working together with people and finding shared solutions because the populist leaders are too incompetent and inept to think differently?
I think there definitely should be consideration of how the global south is sort of in this undecided state where it’s neither with the west or the east yes. But in doing that both the west (particularly the United States) and the east (particularly Russia with their armed private armies and Chinese infrastructure) are not fighting over influence and power in Africa to be exact
If I am preemptive, I apologize. Is the hybrid warfare waged in 3rd-world countries not part of the 'disorder' strategy fueled by the 'Eastern order' ? It appears that weapons and 'instructors' are provided to create conflict/disorder and the 'Western order' must provide humanitarian support (medical, food, accommodation, migrants) to these countries. The result often ends in a conversion from democracy to autocracy, with a weakened 'Western order'; politically and financially. Currently, these conflicts have increased in incidence and it is as if the 'Eastern order' nudges the 'Western order' to 'do not look here, but rather look over there'.
Question. Why is the British empire global?
And why isn’t the Spanish empire not considered global?
1492-1810 globalization took place where first circumnavigation 1519 took place with Magallanes and Elcano? Opening the East with Philippines, (named after Phillip II) China, etc., Mexico to Spain?
America, Europe, and China, India, Molucas, Philippines not global?
Alex your introduction sounds like a man trying to finish a book about geopolitics when people keep starting wars that require rewrites and extra chapters.
Lol, true. I suspect he will have a lot of rewriting to do in the coming months and years...
👍👍👍
Interesting perspective - but unfortunately misses out the significance, impact and influence on society [Multipolar, unipolar, otherwise] of Climate Change and Artificial Intelligence. I have a lot of time for Alexander Stubb, but these aspects are essential to understand any forward trajectory. Emerging financial debt and Bond Market implosion of all nations, are another aspect that should be referenced.
I agree, until we figure out how to handle AI and climate change, everything else is pointless. An automated and sustainable economy should be the ultimate goal of all democracies. The geopolitical dynamics of oil is a dead end that only hurts democracies and strengthens autocracies.
Bro, it's just chapter 1 of his book, I'm sure he'll get into more detail in later chapters
With respect, we didn't all believe in 'the end of history'.
Theres mention of the ideological leadership of the west as being a liberal, rules based order, but there’s many values that flourished in the west, as well as in the rest of the world, but didn’t settle. These are put aside, but maybe are complementary to democracy. Do you think the development model of the west is a finished product, or can it still become a better one?
Thanks Alex for an other thought-provoking lecture. The mention of the Westphalian order provokes me, based on my studies in history and political science. The United States is more like the Holy Roman Empire than like a typical nation-state. It follows, IMHO, the status of nation-state as described in the Westphalian doctrine and that of the various international bodies like the UN, applies to the US to the same degree that the HRE does, when it is said to be "neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire." Specifically, the US Federal Government is not the sole possessor of sovereignty, it does not have the sole monopoly of power, it is not in absolute control of the territory because it can neither eliminate nor change the borders of a state, nor a state's constitution and laws, the states retain significant independent sovereignty. Applying the definition of a nation-state to the US requires fudging the matter. In fact, the US is rather more like the EU, or a gigantic Switzerland.
This does not mean that I find any justification for the "states' rights" argument because those making it do not understand the checks and balances that the founders established. They used the HRW and Swiss Federation as significant sources in the establishment of the Second Union that is still in power. The opponents of the present system go too far in asserting the rights of the states, to the point of ignoring the shared nature of sovereignty as stated in the documents and the writings of the founders.
In the U.S., the
progression was order➡️corruption ➡️disorder. A repeated pattern in history. 🇺🇸
The adoption of new paradigms with regards to power dynamics between countries is as much a function of economics as a desire to adopt Western values. Basically, "what's in it for me?" Also in that same vein is internal power dynamics of countries and whether they are more autocratic vs democratic in their present dynamics.
These are not separable, I think. I think the influence of oligarchy( the rich controlling the levers of power) in every country is inevitable. It may also be a function of whether psychologically a population can resist populism vs. tolerate democratic independent thinking.
It's complicated, as you say. But back to my first point. The post cold War Economic boom has had uneven economic benefits across the global south. The root cause of this, I think, is uneven investment by developed / industrialized economies. The focus of developed economies has been mostly on exploiting natural resources, cheap labor, and economies of scale in order to cheaply produce goods for the established 1st world economies. With very little thought about bringing developing economies along for the ride.
Add to this the exploitive tendencies of authoritarian regimes and what little wealth reaches the global south is captured by corrupt regimes to cement their control of the population. These regimes have little interest in liberalizing their economies much less their cultures. Instead they will seek to control them by any means available, religion, police states, corruption, etc.
The population will then question the benefits supporting one order over another since neither offers them a way out of poverty, instead they are focused on survival, exploitation of whatever opportunities or methods exist for getting ahead, and staying out of the way of powerful people.
The West being myopically focused on managing the cost of goods sold, spends little capital on building diversified supply chains that also bring real benefits to the general population. Instead they pile on and put all their eggs in one basket (China, India, Russia)
So why should the global south support the liberal western way of doing things, when the west ignores them and is hyperfocused on its own problems? Besides which the people in power are only interested extracting wealth for themselves, (whoever gives them the biggest bribe wins) so for common folks pressuring for change has no benefits. (All politics is local)
Capitalism is inherently colonial in its approach to problem solving. Western democracies are dominated by capitalist economies. Since oligarchs are powerful influencers its natural for Western countries to optimize for the maximum benefit of their industrialists.
Since the Reagan Era, the US foreign policy has been focused on deregulation, the promotion of "free" markets, and "realpolitique" or a willingness to deal with corrupt regimes in order to achieve strategic or economic objectives. The US being a trend setter, may have influenced Europe to go along with these ideas.
Also consider life expectancy in first world countries. I'm not sure about Europe but at least in the US politics is controlled by a geriatric generation that has held on to old ideas for the last 50 years, and the means to enforce them. So the policies of the last 50 years can easily be traced to a single generation of thinkers and influencers.
Ok, here we go again. Previously, you asked my opinion on what to name this global transition. I remain with "Sort It Out" without any definition of what "It" is. BTW, I agree with your assessment of the world order as it now stands. However, I don't see the point in You (or Me) sorting it out other than as something to do. The world (and its residents) needs to stand on its own and sort itself out. It is quite possible that this transition will be the transition away from authorities... but I personally doubt it. There is the technological ability now where individual rights could be secondary to individual responsibities. But once again, I doubt it. The human brain is not designed to behave in this fashion.
Fantastic, Mr. Honesty! The Roman Empire was about an order, Qing dynasty, Ottoman Empire and global British empire. That is it😂 What about Russian Empire, due to which your country got authonomy? Due to which Finland had own laws, own language, own parliament. Is it about your bad memory or bad knowledge?
Russia tried to Russify Finland multiple times. Finland's official language under the autonomy was Swedish, not Finnish. Finland doesn't owe Russia anything.
Disorder is the fate of everything🫵
There was a brief moment in history, when it from the western view seemed like the world should have been unipolar. This is a very arrogant and self-indulgent way of seeing things, as the world was earlier and still was a multipolar entity, based on sovereign states.
The U.S. has never respected this, constantly meddling all around, craving for power and control. There was a moment the Soviet had collapsed, but this doesn't mean USA would have been sovereign in any way. It wanted to be, and called the idea "The New World Order" (observe the word play, as America is called "The New World").
Thus the enterprise "New World Order" deemed itself the one and only world power, working full time to establish a one world rule system, global control and "full spectrum dominance". Europe has always been the submissive lap dog of the U.S., and our politicians are full-fledged disciples of this paradigm. There is no other reality for them.
In his Munich speech in 2007 Putin, being several times rejected and deceived by the west, clearly stated he wouldn't join this enterprise. Since then Russia has been the number one enemy for the NWO, even surpassing China.
The consept of "disorder" (or, as older Bush frased it "the rule of the jungle") refers thus to the inconvenient fact, that Russia (and other adversaries) has a will and actions of its own. The "rule based order" in turn is the self-proclaimed and coercive rule of the western globalist power.
How's the world order decided and who gets to decide?
Everyone and no one. The world order is but a state of things, historically "led" by the west. Alex proposes that that will no longer be the case. The new world order reflects that; no one bloc or system will dominate, but will be defined by intense competition and friction between coalescing blocs.
Thank you
Perhaps there is a team behind the scene telling the leaders what to do it's obvious that Biden is not really in charge but a puppet who has a hard time reading the speeches others wrote just thinking 🤔
Sounds like your transition began where I left off in 1988 , leaving Berlin and the Reichstag back to little NZ job done in my representation of the future.
The Universe not so disorganized as in would seem if you are a multilateral quantum based system as we are known to be, well almost known as the case may be :)
At all levels raising consciousness is key in the manner of our development (your job:), given disorder seemingly the natural state of our quantum realm beyond relativity and the indepths of our thinking. (You look stressed currently?)
The path forward (temporal variance sensitive at this fork) is focused back on Georgia as the east meets west crossroads of sustainable development and likewise Finland as the Arctic opens up.
All manner of authoritarian platforms are a threat to our development ultimately.
The holy mess of the middle east falls within their expectations to no end purpose but their own.
Leaders changes while in office. A newly elected Putin would be less likely to invade a neighbour. There is a personality contribution to the analysis.
How sustainable will the influence of the Global East be on the Global South? Some countries are turning away from China (which has indebted them), and Russia has exposed itself as a bad player with the Wagner group, relying on military coercion and economic exploitation.
"I didn't finish listening to either the first or the second chapter, and I interrupted the third at the beginning to comment: you talk too munch about your past! In the world we live in, with the internal problems of the United States, the war between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel/Palestine conflict and the Arab world, China, Taiwan and the Far East, and with a future in which we don't know if we'll be there... do you tell us about your experiences? The future matters and is uncertain.
Global South, Autocracies, - Who is this " we" in any other governance, other than universal franchised democracies,, the "we" is not the " country" it is a cabal of autocrats, using imperialism, religion, or other idelogy to enslave the general popumlation for their own goals, aims, and enrichment. It is an old system which includes self perpetuating dynasties. To use the same words, which in English, apply to our Democratic, Western governance system, gives these regimes a ligitmacy they do not deserve. There is no " government" in Iran, or Russia, or North Korea, they are despotic autocracies where the strongest and most devious prevail. They only "govern" in the sense that they can supress and opress their populations.Your ideas are acedemic - the real description of the global conflict is modern democracy vs. 10 ct. autocracy, and brute force, vs. reason and enlightenment.
Professor Stubb, please allow me to send a comment that I wrote to Victor Hansen about the Israeli-Hamas war and what I believe could be the solution for ending the tragic war between these peoples. War, war, and more war The Palestinian children kicking a poor Israeli captured child is sick. We must realize that this puzzle does not need to be a riddle and we can avoid making it an enigma. What do we want future generations to reflect on about this horrific conflict that has two peoples at each other’s throats? How about this as a peace plan? First; Gaza gets evacuated for one thing. This stretch of land that has been a hotbed of suffering and a shameful tribute to what the United Nations was supposed to be taking care of and failed miserably at: getting the Palestinians out of their open prison and freak circus of refugee camps and secure a land, a territory, a country for the most abused people of the earth: the Palestinians. Fellow Arab nations have been muted in watching their brothers and sisters playing Russian Roulette in this pit called Gaza with the Grim Reaper's pendulum slicing through any sort of decent life fit for a human being. As a human community we should all be ashamed to not fix this hole in our legacy that will echo in eternity. What is a peaceful way out of this and that would stop Hamas in its tracks? Make Gaza a wildlife sanctuary for endangered species of plants, animals, amphibians and aquatic life which are disappearing at an alarming rate. Our progeny would look back on us with pride as the generation who found that avoiding war could be done with creating wildlife reserves that both sides of any conflict respect and protect at all costs. We are talking about getting Jordon for example, to help us out here and cut off a slice of their huge country to allow the Palestinians to join their brethren in The West Bank. We are asking the Arab nations to put aside their prejudices and help their brothers and sisters with temporary housing until new homes and structures can be built. This could lead to one day in the not-so-distant future of Palestinians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrian and Israelis tilling the soil and helping maintain what could be called a Galapagos of the middle east. It would bring more tourists than the pyramids; it could help heal the deep wounds that senseless conflict has rendered on people who deserve a better chance at having a good life. It is doable.
Sweet jesus, nuts
Not going to happen, I believe. None of the Arab nations will be willing to give up land. And no other Nation will oblige either. Not after the experience made with Israel.
...but I must say: I love your idea.
@@thesilkpainter GGGGGGGGGGreat to hear from you. I am throwing out ideas and proposals that start with peace and end with peace. One thing I have learned in life and that is when you give up on whatever it is you're going for, it never happens. It's a chess game life is, and checkmate is something that never happens unless you let it happen. The Arab nations will change their ways, we just haven't found the way to convince them yet, but time is on our side.
Dead man is speaking how it's possible?
Distil
Britain first World Order? What about Spain? Roman regional World order, do not forget China regional World order.
How does Western domestic greed, the rise of Trump resulting for example, connect to the strain that our democracies appear to be experiencing? Is the rise of billionaires really necessary? At the expense of what?
The solution is PR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION Voting system then the political class will have to work fir thier plebs not for thier own advantage, listen to Arnie Schwarzenegger, he has the right idea's.
Well we moved from a balanced bi-polar , Duopoly world, into a Unipolar, Mopolistic and thus regressive world and now we move into a multipolar I would like to call it Polypole world. This one will be far more diverse and market like. WIth sovereign pluralistic players.
The last Western Empire, the US empire, has started to fade and increasingly feeds on its existing colonies which get sucked dry.
GDP PPP / Capita in most larger EMpire colonies have fallen dramatically over the last 15 years: between -10 and -17% for France, UK, Spain, Japan. The EU stagnated at +-0%, while the Hegemon ensured its 5% free empire rent p.a., as very well researched by Thomas Piketty et all in 2012.
Next the empire will thrash about more violently as the cheap energy access gets blcoked along more and more veins and arteries.
The US will have to suck harder and more from its colonies in Europe.
Eventually the colonies will notice that they shrivel while the US still looks healthy outwardly: 58% GDP PPP / Capita for the US since 2008.
Like with every empire it dissolves from the edges, as it is a fairly concentric structure.
Remote and losely coupled colonies will jump ship first.
Saudi Arabia was one major colony seceding.
The new BRICS system which fosters a Polypole world is the new model. 500 years of imperail business model have not been convincing for 90% of the world.
Not hard to understand: who wants to be sovereign and self-determined and free, and who a slave of a Hegemon?
The ideological veil will still hold the colony minds locked in place for some time- but no one can feed on ideology for ever.
The decay will now accelerate over the next 20 years.
The US will thrash about and trigger another couple of wars, but it is downhill from now on.
Once the colonies starve the Hegemon will suddenly experience energy shortage and rapidly decay, having all instruments of energy extraction exhausted.
Have you ever Mr Stubb wondered why no significant press or institutions ask you for your assessment and opinion? Have you ever wondered why so few and so immature people see your features. Could it be related to the fact that you contribute nothing. But I must admit that you would probably make a good primary school teacher in Findland.
I think that Georgia started the war when they bombed the capital of South Ossetia, killing many civilians. South Ossetia is a Russian speaking area that declared independence from Georgia. At least this is according to Phillip Short's book Putin published in 2022. There have also been various professors who have written about the conflict where they do state that Georigia started the conflict. You need to read more about the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia.
Russia started the war. They have framed their victims as attackers before.
🏳🏳🏳peace peace peace"...don't lie! before mathias rust fly to the red maket in moskva and before berlin's wall destroying, we had "cold war", because soviet union was afraiding the west
Correction: Russia “invasion” of Ukraine is a response to West coup in Ukraine and war of 2014.
Wrong. There was no coup. Also, Russia actually invaded Ukraine.
You don't accept coldwar because you left ukrainians and russians to certaint death because you didn't negotiate with peskov
Little book salesman!
I believe that communism and socialism offer promising ideas for a fair society. They aim to create a world where inequality is reduced both within countries and between them. The focus is on using technology and resources for the benefit of the majority, rather than a select few.
I agree with Deng Xiaoping's famous quote, "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." To this, I'd add that the issue of power of the 1% must be kept in check. While there's a lot of criticism of socialism, we should also ask where the successes of capitalism are. The Chinese have chosen their own path, recognizing the limitations of Western-style democracy.
Capitalism has a history of oppressing its own people. “From the slimy, spittle-drenched, sidewalk, they were picking up bits of orange peel, apple skin, and grape stems, and, they were eating them. The pits of greengage plums they cracked between their teeth for the kernels inside. They picked up stray bits of bread the size of peas, apple cores so black and dirty one would not take them to be apple cores, and these things these two men took into their mouths, and chewed them, and swallowed them; and this, between six and seven o’clock in the evening of August 20, year of our Lord 1902, in the heart of the greatest, wealthiest, and most powerful empire the world has ever seen.”
The U.S., known for championing democracy, had its own problems, the manner it treated the people of the First Nations, with racial oppression, like the mistreatment of African Americans and its working people.
Internationally, capitalism was associated with practices like slavery and colonialism. The U.S. supported authoritarian regimes in Latin America and was involved in numerous wars, such as Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. I don't think many will be sorry to see this system go.
I think talking about the "isms" o stead of specific structires and policies is a mistake.
I would argue China's not communist because the party elite are just the bourgeoisie, some are just richer capitalists than others. Republicans in America would argue the Democrats are socialists which means they are basically communists. Norway and Sweden are democracies, with capitalist economies, but they're the poster children of "socialism." My point is not that this is right or wrong, only that it doesn't lead to productive conversations. They become entirely rhetorical and people foght about what the "ism" words even mena.
Should government be elected?
Should provate property be a thing?
Should the owners of a business have a legal and ethical obligation to the workers and the health of the company, not just the stock price for the next 2-3 financial quarters?
When should a country step in? Genocide? Easy to stop genocide? Protecting self determination? At least protecting it of it's easy?
Should a country create a spcial safety net? How strong should it be?
Better questions.
While I think Deng Xiaoping was a breath of fresh air for China and was responsible for much of China’s economic resurgence, I’d hate to be that guy that got run down by one of Deng’s PLA tanks at Tiananmen Square. Your analysis of Capitalism and Democracy sounds like a bot hit piece for China, Russia, Iran or any other part of the Authoritarian East. Yeah the US and the West aren’t perfect, but you don’t really see a lot of people lining up in Queues to get a visa to Russia, China, Syria or Tajikistan these days do you? How about the US, Canada, Germany, or France? If we just look how people vote with their feet, I can tell you where people can realize their potential and live a life that many see as challenging but fulfilling.
"Capitalism has a history of oppressing its own people" And socialism and communism doesn't? lol
China is just another authoritarian country controlling the many for the benefit of the few. There is very little difference between China, Russia or Even the United States. Very little GDP reaches the general public. They are not the beneficiaries of their own labor. Instead the world is run for the benefit of the Oligarchs.
America😢 calls it "Liberation" instead of "Invasion". That was what US call it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and the list goes on... Why the double standard? Confused... Please enlighten. Genuine question...
Instances of the United States "liberated" or overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
2014 - 2022 - 9 countries yet to verify.
Pakistan 2022 *
Haiti 2022 *
Niger 2023
Christ, will you stop copy-pasting this BS all over the place?
Again, Professor, please just cut the ugly self-referential anecdotes. Faust rings true. Otherwise, great. It's not supposed to be about you, surely? Maybe I'm the only one who finds self-referential anecdotes hideously self-promotional and self-indulgent. It just seems a shame - lost, diluted potential. Leave the mixer. Just provide a rigorous account of our times, dense and truthful. Don't rabble on about yourself.
@Bailiol It's typical to add personal anecdotes and stories in non- fiction books like these. I actually appreciate it, and it also shows the reader where the author is coming from so you can assess what their biases are.
I disagree, the perspective and experience of a former minister on "personal-texting-Lavrov basis" in the midst of the Cold War is extremely important. Especially when the core of his argument is values based.
Why is Alex so pretentious
How is he pretentious?