as Lithuanian I'm conflicted. Joining NATO and EU was our geopolitical goal even before we officially declared independence and was seen as something worth pursuing by both left and right, especially because of traumatic historical experience and constant threats to our independence from russian political elites. The idea that us joining the western geopolitical framework (literally written in our constitution after independence) pushed Russia to fascism seems too simplistic, especially regarding the fact that russian nationalist current was always prominent among both siloviki and masses.
True, it is too simplistic to just look at the geopolitical situation - the domestic flaws with Russia’s political system and the economic fallout of the 1990s was the basis for heightened nationalism and the growing ‘enemy image’ of NATO only exacerbated it. Dugin had been a fascist many years prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, so they did exist like you said for some time, I think it just became more popular to the average Russian in the 1990s (see nationalist election results in 1993 & 96). I think I only wanted to outline how Russia saw itself as being boxed in (which personally I don’t think is true), and that pushed them towards nationalism and authoritarianism. Thank you for your comment.
I can assure you, or rather OPutin, that in all its history never has NATO even contemplated 'invading' Russia. The idea is absurd. However, the reverse is not true: it is clear that Russia under Putin wants to expand its territory, and the real problem with having NATO on his borders and in his sphere of influence is that NATO puts a limit on his expansionist impulses.
I deeply sympathize with the plight of Ukrainians and despise all the crimes committed at behest of Kremlin. However I would argue that the US and the Western Europe should have chosen to focus on democratization and economic elevation of Russia instead of the two-pronged approach that was undertaken and and ultimately half-assed. I understand they didn’t have all the information that we have now but they knew enough to draw clear lines for the Russian elite and strip them of some trade/tech/businesses opportunities for every violation. One of the key conditions would have been inviolability of neighboring borders, Russian elections integrity, judicial and media independence. They didn’t have to sacrifice freedom of the newly independent states but withhold official enlargement, at least don’t attempt to move further than Poland without a major violation. I guess the hydra approach was a calculated ploy of hawks in American government with them undermining Russia becoming a strong democratic state and thus removing a potential competitor, especially during Bill Clinton’s presidency who delegated foreign policy almost entirely. But like it often happens with American supremacists (who worked to overthrow democratic Iran government, for example), their actions had unintended consequences and now they came home to roost. If instead they managed to make Russia democratic and prosperous it would have been a key security partner in containing the communist China, the belligerent North Korea, the rogue Iran and combating Islamist terrorism.
One huge mistake that videos like these make (no matter if they are pro-west, pro-russia or seemingly "neutral"), is that they consider post-soviet and post-warsaw pact countries as just mere a pawns or tokens to be traded with. Sure, you could leave the whole Eastern Europe to the Russian sphere of influence to quell all Russian insecurities, but that would obviously presuppose direct influence of Russia on said states, no matter if they like it or not. Also the opposite, where all of Europe (including Russia) joins the NATO is to admit, unrealistic due to Russian pride. So in the end it seems that west just did the next best thing - nothing. Just let the Eastern Europe decide for themselves if they want in. Some joined like Poland or Baltics and some not like Belarus or Finland. So current situation seems unavoidable in the retrospect. Its easy to blame the current geopolitical situation on the ignorance of the West, but that ignorance wouldnt turn deadly if it wasnt for pride and hubris of Russia. Many forget that Germany didnt become the way it is by destroying the West, it became like this by beating West in its own game. Same can be said for Japan or China. Russians had a choice, and they choosed violence and pride.
History of Russia didn't start in 1991. Russia with its millions of Russians didn't just pop into existence. It had the historic baggage that influenced how people thought. Elites at the time acted the way they did not purely because for their own reason: they had all those years of living in USSR that changed they way they think what is proper way to govern, what degree of corruption is acceptable, what kind of rule breaking you could get away with. Building foundations for democracy is not as simple as just making a country democratic, or making a country democratic and pleasant to live in. It's hard work to create institutions that work properly, efficiently and without corruption, because people also learn those institutions work and aren't merely fools to be exploited. And fascism, nationalism, irredentism wasn't something that started back then, either. It was merely a reaction to Russia losing its grasp over what it considered to be its rightful defence perimeter. Just because they were satisfied it didn't make their views any more pleasant.
You’ve managed to continue to blame communism for the failures of a capitalist society that went warp speed into privatization. What do you expect to happen? But of course you’ll blame it on the “mindsets” ingrained in them by their soviet upbringings. Speculative nonsense, speak based on actual fact not your bias
They cannot accept the graceful defeat that happened to them. Experimented with Anarcho-capitalism to completely rid of Brezhnev-era policy and failed so hard on that front. The Russians can all have their "anxiety" but her neighbors have all the right to remove themselves from their yoke and it was best for the Russians to accept this and just build their internal politics and reform their economic institutions. Their exaggerated "anxiety" AND MISPLACED PRIDE of being a "great empire" is THEIR FAILING AND THEIR FAILING ALONE.
Those oligarchs spawned in thanks to western financial institution advising Russia sell it's assets for pennies which created Oligarchs whose corruption nearly destroyed Russia.
The "Russia" really did just "pop up" out of nowhere. Bolsheviks have slaughtered the culture of previous state, while their own creation has collapsed on it's own, leaving many in a state of a blank sheet of paper with no goals and only misery. Most functioning democracies right now aren't a product of self-determination - they were forced, guided and supported. In case of Russia, however, the last part was missing and people just didn't see any benefits of democracy or capitalism. Advisors on Russian policy did advise USA and allies to support Russia on it's path to democracy, but the help was incomparably weaker to what was advised and, well, the only "meaningful" assistance was rigging the elections during 90s, so communists wouldn't be back at charge. There were plenty of opportunities to "crush" the resistance to democracy, but all of them were ignored.
While I don’t deny that it played into the hands of nationalists, the former Warsaw Pact and Baltic states joining NATO was definitely the right decision. Even excluding the fact that they wanted to join to escape Russian hegemony, for NATO to have denied them as part of some strategy to soothe Russian fears would have been to make a high-stakes gamble that a defeated country with no history of democratic rule would embrace democracy and reject irredentism, which would have been unlikely even had NATO remained stagnant. More than likely it would have led to a similar situation as current, except without NATO to check it, Russia could easily fulfill its fantasies.
@@realtimestatic Counterpoint: Democratic alliances can be severely weakened by the addition of pseudo-democratic members. See the EU’s troubles with Hungary, or NATO’s troubles with Turkey.
@@realtimestatic Apart from those "defense missions", which could be and have been criticized, with regard to Russia it is purely defensive. It is absurd to think that NATO would 'invade' Russia. NATO is there to ensure that Russia does not invade others, a much more likely possibility.
You've forgotten to factor in Chechnya and two Chechen wars. You didn't mention relative prosperity of Russian society in the 2000s and early 2010s due to high oil prices and democratic reforms incepted in the 90s. I also am not sure if Zhirinovsky even had nationalism on his agenda in the 90s. Your video looks very profound and well researched but I very much feel that your train of thought and your conclusions are mostly wrong
Hi there, thanks for making your criticism known. The Second Chechen war was a propaganda vehicle for the Putin government meant to inspire nationalism and secure his position as president - I agree on that point. However, since I have time restraints with these videos I couldn't delve further into that subject, which would have seen me add another 10 minutes to the video. My conclusion that Putin would make authoritarianism no fad was meant to nod at Putin's attempts to further reinforce authoritarianism and kill off democracy in that fashion. I agree that not factoring in the first Chechen war was an oversight - sometimes I miss things. The Democratic reforms in the 90s were not such much democratic, the constitutional amendment of 1993 centralised power in the executive and was forced through by Yeltsin with unscrupulous means - so on that point I disagree. With regards to the high oil prices of the 2000s I did come across that in my research, but I felt that Russian democracy had already been undermined to the point that that development was no longer important. On the final point, Zhirnovsky was most certainly a nationalist in the 90s - every contemporary publication that I read and every politician that was active during the time who I researched called him a nationalist. In the early 1990s he wanted to repeal perestroika era reforms, reintigrate former soviet republics, and 'end russia's' humiliation abroad - these aims are representative of an authoritarian nationalist. He was also close with other nationalists such as Gennady Zyuganov. (Terry D.Clark - The Zhirinovsky Electoral Victory). You can check the description for the other sources. Overall, good criticism - I did overlook some things, but I still feel the overall argument of the video - why Russian democracy failed being that the political system itself was corrupt and not exactly conducive to democracy - still stands. The fact that Putin further engaged in that system to reinforce authoritarianism is important, but it still does not negate the fact that Russian democracy was fundementally flawed from the start, and that is the crux of the problem.
One criticism I do have is the time frame of how you present this, you talk about it as just "Russia's fall from democracy", when it was more accurately "Russia's failed democratic experiment". Russia didn't have a "rise in authoritarianism", and Putin didn't "make sure authoritarianism wasn't a fad", because Russia had been authoritarian for centuries. You talk about the reasons these authoritarians gained support with "a promise to return to greatness", but you don't actually show what they wanted. You did vaguely talk about the West still viewing Russia as an enemy and a "continuation fo the old order". But you didn't show the Cold War and the history of where these things came from, Russia and the West were enemies for almost a century, and the West didn't change that, Russia was a superpower and a a "great" nation in the world during the Cold War and when they were the Soviet Union for decades, it was just a sudden change from that greatness to poverty and people reasonably wanted to return to that real (not nationalist imagination) "greatness".
Hi there! Thanks for you critique. Unfortunately, due to my own time constraints I was unable to go deeper into the 'history of authoritarianism' in Russia. I instead thought it would be sufficient to look at the most relevant institutional architecture left over from the Soviet Union, which made democracy less likely to succeed i.e. networks of clientelism, state distributed industry etc. Other than that, I don't really agree with you on your assertion that I talk about it as just 'Russia's fall from democracy' - that is primarily semantics and I do actually go over why Russia's 'democratic experiment' was a failure. I definitely do not imply that Democracy was something that had been there for a while, and that Russia just happened to backslide - I say explicitly that Russian 'democracy' came about in 1991 and was then onwards gradually eroded by the remaining institutions of the Soviet Union, Economic Turmoil, International humiliation etc. I understand where you are coming from when you criticize my use of 'putin would make sure authoritarianism was no fad', because in a grander calculus, it was just Russia returning to an authoritarian status quo - but as I wanted the video to be self-contained I thought it would be a good ending to reinforce that Putin's ascent to power was the final nail in the coffin for Russia's foray into democracy. Finally, I think I do go over what nationalists wanted to some degree (although mind you I found in my research they were just as vague in practical aims, in many cases they did just vaguely point to the notion of former glory and contrast it with the poor state of affairs at the time). I discuss how Zhirinovsky wanted to end Russia's humiliation on the international stage, how nationalists wanted to regain a sense of superpower status (manifested in the quote about Soviet tanks by Yuri Vdovin). I also look at how nationalists were using economic turmoil to push for a shift away from democracy (Nevzerov quote 5:25) - which they obviously wanted to do away with. I do agree I could have contextualized it slightly better - but I feel the time requirements were not worth a full on cold war contextual integration when as a self contained video it explained most of the realpolitik reasons as to why Russian democracy failed anyway. I agree with your final point though, that poverty definitely shifted them towards nationalism/authoritarianism in order to reclaim former 'greatness', which I believe the video makes clear but also states that it was combined with the distrust of democracy and international 'humiliation'. Anyway, thanks for your criticism - I hoped you at least enjoyed the rest of the video
The graphic design for this video is miles ahead of anything ive seen. This is the (current) top of the style of channels like Vox use, and i think we'll see more and more channels take inspiration here
@SnoopyDoo hmmm. I'm not so sure about that unless you mean quantity of videos produced being content. This appears to be a small production company or even individual, and the number of productions is very small. But the productions are informative to me and the graphics make it pleasing to watch. Kurtsgezacht is interesting but they also have a crew working on their productions.
@@AsIf-pz9kt im pretty sure its just one guy with graphic design experience. Thats why there is so much down time between videos. Certainly worth the wait though!
I know that people take it for granted, but I really appreciate the hard work you put to give us, such quality videos. Content, graphics, presentation. Everything is world-class. I am so angry I couldn't find this channel earlier.
Modern Russia was never a democracy yelstin literally ordered tanks to fire on the parliament building. But since he was the west’s darling who did nothing to curtail nato expansion he is given a pass in history.
That's like saying why my New Years Resolution to lose weight failed. The people who you'd need to make democracy possible did not actually put in the efforts for it to succeed. Russia has 0 years of actual democracy, all that stuff in the 90's? Just a case of flux before the new czar took control once more.
That's the same argument marxists make about past failed socialist experiments. Blaming people instead of the political systems. "The people who you'd need to make socialism possible did not actually put in the efforts for it to succeed. Soviet Union has 0 years of actual socialism, all that stuff in the 1920's? Just a case of flux before the new state capitalism took control once more."
All I'm hearing from these comments is "Russia bad, stupid Russia failed at democracy, the EU and US still seeing Russia as a threat instead of an ally isn't important at all bro cmon it was all stupid ruskies not knowing how to manage their own country.
@@Anton43218 Google "Black October" I'm disappointed this creator made no mention of it. The 1993 Constitutional Crisis was the pivotal moment for the young Russian Federation.
The primary thing imo which killed the Russian democracy was the excessive power of Yeltsin, with the attack by Yeltsin and the army on the duma during the constitutional crisis being what killed amy hope of functional democracy. Simultaneously Russia just has had too much of a centralized power structure to allow for the emergence of a democracy following the Mongol comquest and the establishment of Muscovy, as absolutism became entrenched in Muscovy and Russia from the get go. Multiple times there were calls and attempts at reforms, but the top down heavy system led to too much instability for it to happen as people were accustomed to a system where the authorities call the shots. The Decembrist revolt calling for constitution became immediately doomed as its main leader lost hope and nobody was willing to take over the revolt's command until it was too late. Alexander II was planning to establish a constitution as part of his reforms, but a radical reformost assassinated him for not having reformed fast enough and led to the later Tsars abandoning reforms. The Russo-Japanese war and WW1 broke the monarchy and allowed for the republic to come to power, but the continuation of the same war made way for the Bolsheviks to seize total power.
I'm disappointed that there was no mention in this video of Yeltsin's anti-democratic actions that he took, prior to designating Putin as his successor. Yeltsin intentionally and illegally concentrated power in the Presidency, despite multiple rulings from the Constitutional Court. He did this with the explicit support of western democracies. That information should also be part of the lesson that you're trying to teach here.
The video is good, but I have the impression that you, like your friend Kraut, have a tendency of making very well done and researched videos, but get yourselves wraped in your own opinion and look for arguments to support your own view but presenting that opinion as a fact. In this case, I've seen the criticism of expanding NATO to Eastern Europe like a mistake, forcing Russia into becoming an authoritarian nationalistic regime, but that's not a fact, and Russia's path into a dictatorial regime could have happened no matter what aproach Western countries had adopted. What was the alternative? Those countries had suffered under Russia's sphere of influence for centuries, NATO didn't play the long scheme of influencing those countries to fold them under their alliance; the same democratic principles were applied: those countries decided to embrace prosperity, democracy, and Western values, and we, as Westerners, didn't have much of a choice but accepting them. The ones who refused to join weren't force to do that. Refusing them would had sent the message to those countries that they are pawns and democracy is not a real goal for them, but to be Russia's backyard in an appeasement politic in order to ensure a possible and not probable democracy in Russia, a country with no real history of democracy and a big history of authoritarianism. As I see, in order to ensure the prosperity of Eastern Europe it was necessary to push Russia (and again, those countries had grievances against Russia well before the Soviet Union). Appeasement policies don't really work most of the time. A contained NATO would have prevented the current war in Ukraine, most likely, but that would have mean crisis in other parts of the world given that Russia would be way more powerful and influential, and our principles of democracy would be doubt by the rest of the world: if we are not willing to defend those countries that do want to adopt our values, why would anybody else in the world try to adopt those values to being with? Anyway, that's my view on the subject, my criticism won't go as deep as the Spanish Civil War one. Great video nonetheless, the disagreement doesn't take value for the video, quite the contrary, adds to the discussion.
Thanks for the input - on this video I actually challenged myself to argue a side that I wouldn’t usually take. I’m personally of the opinion that NATO expansion was fairly marginal, and only exacerbated existing nationalist tendencies.
@@IMPERIALYT completely agree with that opinion personally and that aproach of defending a stand you may not completely agree for the sake of the argument itself. Great respect.
10:25 I disagree most geopolitical thinkers in the west believed that confrontation with Russia was over. From the end of history coming out to Yeltsin and Clinton hanging out the belief was that Russia would come good at some point
In 2012, Barack Obama completely laughed off the idea of Russia ever becoming a US geopolitical adversary again when his opponent brought it up in a debate. This video, although good at explaining the Russian perspective, also doesn't mention that the 1997 NATO founding act formally recognized Russia and NATO as non-adversarial, that Putin was at one point interested in joining NATO, Russia participated in joint military drills with NATO, and that NATO purposefully did not station nuclear weapons in new NATO member states. Not having nuclear-armed countries on Russia's borders is also one of the reasons why Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal.
@@Leitis_Fella Regardless of Obama's 2012 theatrics, NATO (an extension of US foreign policy) declared already in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, which led to the Russo-Georgian war and later, in 2014, to the Russo-Ukrainian war, which only escalated in 2022. Russia made it very clear from the beginning that it considered that expansion unacceptable, but NATO pushed on with it regardless, while mainstream politicians like Obama and Merkel played it down, seemingly as a ruse.
@hyhhy Russia does not dicate the foreign policy of INDEPENDENT STATES WHO DECIDED THEY WANTED TO ALIGN THEMSELVES TO AN ALLIANCE. Can the Russian ruling elite NEVER UNDERSTAND, THEY CAN BE RESPECTED BUT NOT BE TRUSTED? Sorry I am tired of the theatrics of Russia's ruling elite. If NATO was out to get Russia, 1991 was that moment. Breaking Russia into pieces would have happened at that exact time because the union was essentially dead and all the cards was on the side of the West. Time to end that delusion of empire because her neighbours are telling them to F-off. Russia can be a great nation again but never in the form which their deluded elite keeps on dreaming of.
@@hyhhy This begun long before 2008. First cracks in Russia-West relations appeared already back in 1994, when Yeltsin warned of a "Cold Peace" after Clinton declared in Budapest a shift from PfP (which Russia had just joined) to a more overt expansion of NATO to Visegrad countries. Ever since then, when NATO has gotten new members, or used its power unilaterally like in Yugoslavia in 1999, Russia has expressed their increasingly harsher opposition, and taken gradual steps away from cooperation towards competition in response. It's not the fault of the whole NATO though, merely the USA that calls the shots. In 2008, Georgia and Ukraine were not allowed into Membership Action Plan, because France and Germany were rightfully concerned about the Russian reaction. It's only the US that is in the position to set the course of NATO. I have no doubt in my mind, that if US wasn't in NATO, NATO would have never expanded in this manner and ignored Russian opposition the same way since the day one.
Lovely video, and while I disagree, thanks for actually looking at the facts instead of going "Russia bad" like 99% of the people when talking about contemporary Russian politics
It looks like a Russian skill issue to me and they're blame shifting the corrupt oligarch problem on the west for not being even more giving. Romania was antagonistic to the USSR even under their sphere of influence and their involvement in the Moldovan-Transnistrian war in 1990-1992 just made the situation crystal clear for us what our future is.
Oligarchs came into power thanks to western financial institution advising Russia to sell it's assets for pennies. It created these Oligarchs whose corruption nearly destroyed Russia.
People (and this video) often ignore the crimes Russia committed against its colonies and therefore why they viewed Russia as an enemy and not to be trusted. Russia was never punished for those crimes, nor has offered any meaningful apology. Eastern and Central Europe were rightly distrustful of Russia and their dislike founded in experience. Had Russia explored its guilt in a meaningful way it might have realised why it continues to be shunned.
This is why I'm so worried about some European countries closing the door to Russian citizens trying to escape Russia itself as they try to invade Ukraine. The EU needs to show Russian citizens, not Russian government but the Russian citizens, that no, they are not seen as enemies, that they are in fact welcomed, otherwise fascistic sentiment grows
Baltics and Poland were begging to join NATO. Clinton administration was bullish on even letting them join due to the belief that the cold war was over
for the west, it really seems like a forced choice: the eastern European countries wanted in, Democratic referendums said so. To deny them would signal political weakness or irrational subservience to a relatively weak (at the time) Russia, and would almost certainly have resulted in the election of new, pro expansion, politicians.
they wanted in, poland, checzoslovakia, chec republic, the baltics, a lot of these countries got treated like shit by russia, polands hate for russia goes back about 400 years, soviet tanks rolling through hungary and checzoslovakia when they wanted to be more independet from the soviet union all played a role.
I feel like this video kind of underplays the agency of not only the Eastern Europeans who joined NATO (pretty enthusiastically, it should be pointed out) but also the Russians. The Eastern Europeans' hesitancy to trust a new, democratic Russia wasn't unfounded given that new states inherit the geopolitical aims and concerns of their predecessors, regardless of ideology. It wasn't a US pressure campaign that caused ex-Warsaw Pact states to join NATO as a middle finger to Russia, but an understandable reaction of liberated people to hedge their bets against the willingness of their longtime tormentor to respect their sovereignty. And while the West could have and should have done more to help Russia transition to liberal democracy in a smoother fashion, how much of the Russians' failure is really on the west? Plenty of post-Soviet states navigated the transition -- albeit imperfectly -- well enough to establish strong institutions, competitive markets, a liberal democratic orders that have, for the most part, stood the test of time. Why does Russia get a pity party, whereas a country like Belarus doesn't? Is Belarus' retrograde nationalistic revanchism the fault of the West, or is it the fault of manipulative authoritarian ex-CPSU cronies who held the keys from the beginning? In reality, it wasn't the failure of the United States or the West to integrate Russia into a free, democratic world. It's not a failure of the West to be nice to Russia that causes Russian men to have a lower life expectancy than men in all but one of its liberated satellite states. It's not the West's fault that Yeltsin busied himself shredding apart Russian democracy as early as 1993. The blood of Russia's democracy is on the hands of Yeltsin and Putin and the millions of Russians who responded to crisis with a clamoring for more of the same, for another repetition of the regime that had just spent the previous fifty years oppressing not only its own people but subjugating millions further afield.
"Come on Russia! Get rid of that nasty communism and totalitarianism so we can all be friends!" "Really? We can be friends?!" "Yeah man! We can all be part of the same gang!" "Awesome! No more communism then! Time to give democracy its time to shine! Glad to finally be friends with you! "Friends? What are you talking about?"
My understanding pertaining to how democracy in Russia failed is that in the early 1990s, Boris Yeltsin simply did not have sufficient love and commitment to democracy to enable democracy to endure.
Oh my god, what a gem of a RUclips channel I have found. Your edits are pure gold, your voice is as captivating as the story you're telling here, and the music track is so engaging. This channel deserves far more subs...
@@rhs5683 he is not even writing books guy. He is just funny shizo, who tells "based" thing sometimes. Literally main hero of aryan hyperborean edits on YT
@@biface1460 Why do you know, what I'm currently watching xaxa I know him from and he's one of the last heart land guys out there, still dont know, why he's so famous out in the west.
First video I’ve watched from you but your quality is top notch. It’s seriously very very good, your insight and explanations are great. You should have 1000x more followers.
Russian nationalists painted the West as "evil". But considering that Nato and the West have repeatedly treated Russia as an enemy, and painted it evil, even when Russia was trying to cooperate with the West and adopt democracy, Russia isn't exactly wrong to paint the West as an enemy, because the West POSITIONED themselves as an enemy of Russia. Russia portrayed the West as an enemy, and they technically weren't wrong to do so.
Nato's treatment of russia as the enemy is much of Russia's own doing as anyone else's. Intervining in Georgia and invading Ukraine doesn't make the West like them more, the opposite infact. Couple that with rigged elections and couple human rights violations and on top of that the 2021 ultimatum i wonder why nato doesn't like russia. Russians don't get that one country joining NATO is not once sided simple affair dictated by mUh aMerIca, people join that alliance for a reason, but it also must be supported by the people of that country, the nations of the alliance, and the joining country must fit certain criterias for having chances to join, such as being a fully functioning democracy
I like how this video shows where Russia feeling threatened by “NATO expansion” comes from without adopting or heavily sympathizing with this position. When Russia finally gives up in Ukraine, with or without some territorial gains, I wonder how we’re going to deal with the aftermath without allowing the Russian state to twist our intentions into seeing ordinary Russian folks as perpetual enemies.
The only way to do this is a massive economic and political assistance in building a democratic state (not like in 90's) so most of russians would have at least basic means to survive so they would have any time and resources to participate in a democratic process. It's ofc much harder than it was in microstates like Baltic countries but without that it will just come to another attempt on russia's neighbours in some future.
Dear IMPERIAL, Thank you for a well developed piece. Understanding of course that it is not possible to explore some nuances of the current political state of Russia, there are some points that need to be detailed. First is that Dugan was never an influence in Russia, indeed his recognition is greater here in the West than it is there. Secondly the Russian people themselves bear a significant amount of the responsibility for their current circumstance. They were offered the hard and difficult path of Democracy, and they chose the easy path of Bread and Guns. While it is true that the Russian people had scant experience with real Democracy, they chose leaders they knew were lying to them, they may have had little experience with Democracy, but they "knew" authoritarianism when they saw it, they wanted it. Lastly what we call "Russia" is in reality a collection of very loosely collected cultures and peoples, it was always so, only Stalin and the KGB kept it all together. The absorption of what is euphemistically called the "Eastern Bloc" countries by NATO was a foregone conclusion, they had been stolen by Stalin and it was always expected they would go back to their historical roots based in Europe. Also the current Russian government is "not" a government, it is instead closer to Al Capone and the Chicago Mob, it is a band of wealthy Men desperately holding onto each others coattails terrified what will happen if the merry-go-round they have instigated should ever stop.
Calling Vladimir Zhirinovsky a nationalist isn't exactly correct. He was imperial-nationalist, saying little about Russian as a nation / ethnicity, but more about Russian as a “Soviet people”, “People of Russia”. Also, he was ethnically Jewish which makes his nationalism not ethnical, but more imperial-like / Dugin-like.
Yeah, how's that path to respect working out for Russia? Two UN votes were 145-5 condemning Russias war in Ukraine. The contempt heaped upon Russia, especially with the abysmal performance of the Army, is larger now than ever before. And I regularly opine to people, "we were afraid of this?"
It's funny (and sad) because a lot of the description of Russia's failed democracy and the discontent of her people applies equally well to our "Western" "Democracies".
@@EarthForces IKR. Instead, we should do nothing about our failed political structures, brazenly lecture others about theirs and about their abhorrent practices of imperial subjugation, all while we ourselves engage in the very same abhorrent practices. That's the correct course of action for sure and will keep us earning love and goodwill from the rest of the world.
I believe you place too much blame on the West, acting like it treated Russia horribly. The enlargement of NATO was controversial even in the 90s, and I recall the American government under Clinton to be opposed to it. It was only the threatening to lobby and campaign in favor of his electoral opponents in the Republican Party by figures like Lech Walęsa and Václav Havel that eventually caused America to relent. Additionally, Russia’s foreign policy was already aggressive since independence, as it waged wars in Georgia, Transnistria, and Chechnya. This was no doubt cause for concern amongst Eastern European countries, and long before 1999, when countries like Poland and Czechia joined NATO. It is therefore problematic to view the West as a monolith and to describe NATO’s process of enlargement as “expansion”, since the decision to join is made by the people of the countries seeking membership. As we have seen time and time again, it is more Russian foreign policy that drives the enlargement of NATO, most recently observed with Finland and Sweden. Ukraine itself had no feasible NATO aspirations, and definitely no public support, until Russia’s invasion in 2014. Failure to be “accepted” into Western institutions also definitely partly or mostly lies with Russia or Putin. For example, Putin approached George Robertson, SecGen of NATO (1999-2003) when Russia still had aspirations to join NATO. “The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’” Russia never wanted to respect the process of joining such institutions, or the members of those institutions, or those applying to join those institutions. I think your video is very well made and also researched but harmful and at times misleading in its messaging.
As someone who's first taste of voting was for EU/NATO membership from country closest to Moscow, i salute your understanding and present you a 🏆 for the best comment in this section, even if not many will see it. Sentiment in Russia when we joined was not one of today's, which in my opinion is the discrepancy from the attempt at neutral position here. Still not entirely inaccurate viewpoint of some moderate Russians at some point in time.
There is another piece of the puzzle that's not being adressed. The west prioritized the establishment of capitalism over the establishement of democracy. "free markets" and "capitalism" are not exclusive characteristics of democracy and we have many cases where free markets were paired with totalitarian political systems (the US even favoured totalitarian capitlaism over democratic socialism and backed coups against the latter in many, many instances such as chile's pinochet regime, greece's papadopoulos regime, etc.) This fast tracking of capitlaism during a crisis (also known as the shock doctrine) rapidly privatized industry. This paired with a lack of democratic institutions ensured that there would be mass corruption in the proccess that would hurt the russian population whilst enriching a small elite at the worst possible time, resulting in the russian population becoming rertile ground for totalitarian, nantionalistic propaganda.
@@EarthForces The SPD took charge once Kaiser Wilhelm Abdicated and held power for alot of weimar republic's existance. Not exactly prioritizing capitalism over socialist democracy
Western ideas expansion in Eastern Europe was/is the rhetorical fuel of nationalists/authoritarianists to assure power and public supports. But this kind of political views have nearly 5 century of dominance of political discourse in Russia, totally lacking any valid European liberalism. Any tentative will have the same result of today Russia, supporting or not Yeltsin, expansion or not of EU and NATO, either a new Marshall Plan would failed without a bedrock of real democracy, Germany was "normalised" with heaviest political, military, economic investment of 3 country. Maybe the only solution was a peaceful political and economic "occupation", as was after WW2 West Germany, but that time wasn't so peaceful.
That editing was 🔥🔥 god damn my man I would pay so much money for a tutorial on your editing style; i can puzzle together like 90% of what you do, but the way you manage to incorporate 3D into these motion graphics is amazing.
While this does not at all add moral complexity to the war in Ukraine, I do deeply sympathize with ordinary Russians than I did before - the reason why they support such a war. It’s not a war out of hatred, but perpetual fear. They are more afraid of the West than they are of Putin, not that they really love Putin all that much.
That just goes to show the russian people are mostly uneducated, conditioned and brainwashed into thinking that somehow the west wants to harm them. It is precisely this which makes most countries around the world despise the russian people not just the regime.
A lot of this video really sounds like the author is blaming the West for Russia's failure to democratise. NATO involvement in Eastern Europe was at the behest of those countries, the sovereign states of Eastern Euroipe wanted to join NATO for their own protection and security, and most are successful democracies that are heavily integrated into the Western order (if such a thing exists). Russia's failure to follow the same trajectory is its own.
It is pretty apt that a cold war era stance and foreign policy essentially led to the war in ukraine. Now with the two dimensional coverage of that war it is effectively perpetuating the unnecessary cold war mentality that fueled the policies that lead to this war. It was easy to notice how america never really stopped the cold war footing after the 90s, and part of the reason for it likely has to do with the average age of the DC swamp rats who've been on capitol hill for longer than many of us have been alive, and predates the end of the cold war.
As Orban said, “Democratic freedoms in Russia are not a matter of the first or second order. The main question of Russia is to preserve its integrity. For the sake of this task, Russians are ready to sacrifice some democratic freedoms. This is not understood in the West”
When you pointed to how many years the Dugin book preceded the Ukraine invasion (1997-2022), I think what is often omitted, is that the actual initiation of Russian hostilities towards Ukraine was in 2014.
Has Nato ever attacked anyone ? Russia was never punished, even though it perhaps should have. Russia simply never accepted that they do no have a right to own other nations. And now we have to teach them the hard way.
My man, if you listen to the Voiceover I’m saying that Russia wanted to turn Turkey into a rump state. That map is depicting Turkey in such a scenario, with some of their territories divested from them by Russia. A rump state is a successor state to a country that has its territories drastically reduced. It’s not supposed to be a contemporary map of Turkey.
The problem was that Russia never had an established democracy. The peoples opinion never strongly mattered. Their chaotic years with Yeltsin was just a democratic movement. It was never established as "the" state form.The question would be rather how the siloviki and the KGB took Russia under full control. 1) The Silovici were aware of the impending collabs of the soviet union. Massiv monetary funds left the country to secure their grip over the country even after its collabs. 2)The silovici and other established officials stayed in place. The heads changed to a democratic Yeltsin changed, but the older system was still in place and waiting for their time. 3)The only problem was the decreasing grip over the exporting ressources, which slowly went to young bankers later known as oligarchs. This is the place were the real money and therefor the real power is. So the silovici slowly used their influence and hidden funds to get a grip into the sector. A perfect example is the rise of Putin in St Pertersberg. They worked with the organised crime to threaten and kill people to get the sea port and the oil terminal under their control. 4) They beginn the Chechen War take over the goverment and exchange the oligarchs. So I would say, where as in other countries there is corruption, in Russia that is the system. The only currency is power. Siphoning money is the daily work. They live in a different world.
Демократии не было даже в стране ее зарождения. Не может быть демократии там, где 1 человек выступает от лица тысяч. Особенно без обсуждения вопроса с людьми от лица которых он говорит. Попробуйте снять вашего избранника с должности, которую вы ему "делегировали". Скорее вас посадят, чем его снимут. Как не крути мы всегда приходит к власти одного человека.
I really like how this points out that many of the anti-Russia policies and institutions such as NATO were kept around and used to further geopolitical objectives after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Most people lambast anything that’s not “Russia bad” now because of the conflict in the Ukraine; but this belligerence and anti western sentiment has been partially brewing through policies stretching back to the Bush senior administration
Are you blaming Eastern Europe in rejecting being Russian client-states? Also, the case for discussion and justification of ending NATO was up for the members of the alliance to decide NOT RUSSIA. The Russians can change but were too arrogant and prideful to not accept the failings of their own system and the choices their elites made in the 1990s
Конечно можно говорить о поднятии национализма в России в начале 90х, но сейчас, хотя может я дурак или слепой, в России нет национализма, есть враждебность по отношению к Западу, но она не распространяется на отдельных простых людей. Цензуры СМИ при Ельцине не было вовсе, а Путин при своем первом, да и втором сроке был человеком желающим равноправных отношений с Западом, хотя конечно, сейчас это изменилось.
Or Russia could have abandoned its illusions of greatness and just focused on making the lives of its citizens better! They have nuclear weapons, no one could invade/subjugate them. And maybe if they built a decent society, with strong democracy, robust economy and gleaming cities, maybe then Ukraine and other countries would get in line to trade with them and be partners. But no… Better to have an empty plate and a statue of a great power, whatever that is.
as Lithuanian I'm conflicted. Joining NATO and EU was our geopolitical goal even before we officially declared independence and was seen as something worth pursuing by both left and right, especially because of traumatic historical experience and constant threats to our independence from russian political elites. The idea that us joining the western geopolitical framework (literally written in our constitution after independence) pushed Russia to fascism seems too simplistic, especially regarding the fact that russian nationalist current was always prominent among both siloviki and masses.
True, it is too simplistic to just look at the geopolitical situation - the domestic flaws with Russia’s political system and the economic fallout of the 1990s was the basis for heightened nationalism and the growing ‘enemy image’ of NATO only exacerbated it. Dugin had been a fascist many years prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, so they did exist like you said for some time, I think it just became more popular to the average Russian in the 1990s (see nationalist election results in 1993 & 96). I think I only wanted to outline how Russia saw itself as being boxed in (which personally I don’t think is true), and that pushed them towards nationalism and authoritarianism. Thank you for your comment.
I can assure you, or rather OPutin, that in all its history never has NATO even contemplated 'invading' Russia. The idea is absurd. However, the reverse is not true: it is clear that Russia under Putin wants to expand its territory, and the real problem with having NATO on his borders and in his sphere of influence is that NATO puts a limit on his expansionist impulses.
I deeply sympathize with the plight of Ukrainians and despise all the crimes committed at behest of Kremlin. However I would argue that the US and the Western Europe should have chosen to focus on democratization and economic elevation of Russia instead of the two-pronged approach that was undertaken and and ultimately half-assed. I understand they didn’t have all the information that we have now but they knew enough to draw clear lines for the Russian elite and strip them of some trade/tech/businesses opportunities for every violation. One of the key conditions would have been inviolability of neighboring borders, Russian elections integrity, judicial and media independence. They didn’t have to sacrifice freedom of the newly independent states but withhold official enlargement, at least don’t attempt to move further than Poland without a major violation.
I guess the hydra approach was a calculated ploy of hawks in American government with them undermining Russia becoming a strong democratic state and thus removing a potential competitor, especially during Bill Clinton’s presidency who delegated foreign policy almost entirely. But like it often happens with American supremacists (who worked to overthrow democratic Iran government, for example), their actions had unintended consequences and now they came home to roost. If instead they managed to make Russia democratic and prosperous it would have been a key security partner in containing the communist China, the belligerent North Korea, the rogue Iran and combating Islamist terrorism.
@@DorianLS Yeah, Russia does not fear an invasion from NATO, they fear that NATO will make it impossible for them to invade others.
One huge mistake that videos like these make (no matter if they are pro-west, pro-russia or seemingly "neutral"), is that they consider post-soviet and post-warsaw pact countries as just mere a pawns or tokens to be traded with.
Sure, you could leave the whole Eastern Europe to the Russian sphere of influence to quell all Russian insecurities, but that would obviously presuppose direct influence of Russia on said states, no matter if they like it or not.
Also the opposite, where all of Europe (including Russia) joins the NATO is to admit, unrealistic due to Russian pride.
So in the end it seems that west just did the next best thing - nothing. Just let the Eastern Europe decide for themselves if they want in. Some joined like Poland or Baltics and some not like Belarus or Finland.
So current situation seems unavoidable in the retrospect.
Its easy to blame the current geopolitical situation on the ignorance of the West, but that ignorance wouldnt turn deadly if it wasnt for pride and hubris of Russia.
Many forget that Germany didnt become the way it is by destroying the West, it became like this by beating West in its own game. Same can be said for Japan or China. Russians had a choice, and they choosed violence and pride.
History of Russia didn't start in 1991. Russia with its millions of Russians didn't just pop into existence. It had the historic baggage that influenced how people thought. Elites at the time acted the way they did not purely because for their own reason: they had all those years of living in USSR that changed they way they think what is proper way to govern, what degree of corruption is acceptable, what kind of rule breaking you could get away with. Building foundations for democracy is not as simple as just making a country democratic, or making a country democratic and pleasant to live in. It's hard work to create institutions that work properly, efficiently and without corruption, because people also learn those institutions work and aren't merely fools to be exploited.
And fascism, nationalism, irredentism wasn't something that started back then, either. It was merely a reaction to Russia losing its grasp over what it considered to be its rightful defence perimeter. Just because they were satisfied it didn't make their views any more pleasant.
You’ve managed to continue to blame communism for the failures of a capitalist society that went warp speed into privatization. What do you expect to happen? But of course you’ll blame it on the “mindsets” ingrained in them by their soviet upbringings. Speculative nonsense, speak based on actual fact not your bias
They cannot accept the graceful defeat that happened to them. Experimented with Anarcho-capitalism to completely rid of Brezhnev-era policy and failed so hard on that front.
The Russians can all have their "anxiety" but her neighbors have all the right to remove themselves from their yoke and it was best for the Russians to accept this and just build their internal politics and reform their economic institutions. Their exaggerated "anxiety" AND MISPLACED PRIDE of being a "great empire" is THEIR FAILING AND THEIR FAILING ALONE.
Those oligarchs spawned in thanks to western financial institution advising Russia sell it's assets for pennies which created Oligarchs whose corruption nearly destroyed Russia.
The "Russia" really did just "pop up" out of nowhere.
Bolsheviks have slaughtered the culture of previous state, while their own creation has collapsed on it's own, leaving many in a state of a blank sheet of paper with no goals and only misery.
Most functioning democracies right now aren't a product of self-determination - they were forced, guided and supported. In case of Russia, however, the last part was missing and people just didn't see any benefits of democracy or capitalism. Advisors on Russian policy did advise USA and allies to support Russia on it's path to democracy, but the help was incomparably weaker to what was advised and, well, the only "meaningful" assistance was rigging the elections during 90s, so communists wouldn't be back at charge.
There were plenty of opportunities to "crush" the resistance to democracy, but all of them were ignored.
While I don’t deny that it played into the hands of nationalists, the former Warsaw Pact and Baltic states joining NATO was definitely the right decision.
Even excluding the fact that they wanted to join to escape Russian hegemony, for NATO to have denied them as part of some strategy to soothe Russian fears would have been to make a high-stakes gamble that a defeated country with no history of democratic rule would embrace democracy and reject irredentism, which would have been unlikely even had NATO remained stagnant.
More than likely it would have led to a similar situation as current, except without NATO to check it, Russia could easily fulfill its fantasies.
Because being puppet of NATO or the US is much better than russia
Look at central american country
I think it would’ve been best if democratic Russia joined NATO. I mean it’s solely a defense alliance that had done a few UN missions but nothing else
@@realtimestatic Counterpoint: Democratic alliances can be severely weakened by the addition of pseudo-democratic members. See the EU’s troubles with Hungary, or NATO’s troubles with Turkey.
@@rhubarbjin that’s why I said a democratic Russia, not the current one
@@realtimestatic Apart from those "defense missions", which could be and have been criticized, with regard to Russia it is purely defensive. It is absurd to think that NATO would 'invade' Russia. NATO is there to ensure that Russia does not invade others, a much more likely possibility.
You've forgotten to factor in Chechnya and two Chechen wars. You didn't mention relative prosperity of Russian society in the 2000s and early 2010s due to high oil prices and democratic reforms incepted in the 90s. I also am not sure if Zhirinovsky even had nationalism on his agenda in the 90s.
Your video looks very profound and well researched but I very much feel that your train of thought and your conclusions are mostly wrong
Hi there, thanks for making your criticism known. The Second Chechen war was a propaganda vehicle for the Putin government meant to inspire nationalism and secure his position as president - I agree on that point. However, since I have time restraints with these videos I couldn't delve further into that subject, which would have seen me add another 10 minutes to the video. My conclusion that Putin would make authoritarianism no fad was meant to nod at Putin's attempts to further reinforce authoritarianism and kill off democracy in that fashion. I agree that not factoring in the first Chechen war was an oversight - sometimes I miss things.
The Democratic reforms in the 90s were not such much democratic, the constitutional amendment of 1993 centralised power in the executive and was forced through by Yeltsin with unscrupulous means - so on that point I disagree. With regards to the high oil prices of the 2000s I did come across that in my research, but I felt that Russian democracy had already been undermined to the point that that development was no longer important.
On the final point, Zhirnovsky was most certainly a nationalist in the 90s - every contemporary publication that I read and every politician that was active during the time who I researched called him a nationalist. In the early 1990s he wanted to repeal perestroika era reforms, reintigrate former soviet republics, and 'end russia's' humiliation abroad - these aims are representative of an authoritarian nationalist. He was also close with other nationalists such as Gennady Zyuganov. (Terry D.Clark - The Zhirinovsky Electoral Victory). You can check the description for the other sources.
Overall, good criticism - I did overlook some things, but I still feel the overall argument of the video - why Russian democracy failed being that the political system itself was corrupt and not exactly conducive to democracy - still stands. The fact that Putin further engaged in that system to reinforce authoritarianism is important, but it still does not negate the fact that Russian democracy was fundementally flawed from the start, and that is the crux of the problem.
@@IMPERIALYTbiases. Dugin is a just clown, not serious philosophyman down here.
@@SN-gd3fmdugler isnt a clown he just isnt as sinister and important as westoids try to make him
More like because of Putin putting on a leash on Russian oligarchs who were looting Russia and ending their political power.
@@digger6843imagine using the term Westwoids unironically
One criticism I do have is the time frame of how you present this, you talk about it as just "Russia's fall from democracy", when it was more accurately "Russia's failed democratic experiment". Russia didn't have a "rise in authoritarianism", and Putin didn't "make sure authoritarianism wasn't a fad", because Russia had been authoritarian for centuries.
You talk about the reasons these authoritarians gained support with "a promise to return to greatness", but you don't actually show what they wanted. You did vaguely talk about the West still viewing Russia as an enemy and a "continuation fo the old order". But you didn't show the Cold War and the history of where these things came from, Russia and the West were enemies for almost a century, and the West didn't change that, Russia was a superpower and a a "great" nation in the world during the Cold War and when they were the Soviet Union for decades, it was just a sudden change from that greatness to poverty and people reasonably wanted to return to that real (not nationalist imagination) "greatness".
Hi there! Thanks for you critique. Unfortunately, due to my own time constraints I was unable to go deeper into the 'history of authoritarianism' in Russia. I instead thought it would be sufficient to look at the most relevant institutional architecture left over from the Soviet Union, which made democracy less likely to succeed i.e. networks of clientelism, state distributed industry etc. Other than that, I don't really agree with you on your assertion that I talk about it as just 'Russia's fall from democracy' - that is primarily semantics and I do actually go over why Russia's 'democratic experiment' was a failure. I definitely do not imply that Democracy was something that had been there for a while, and that Russia just happened to backslide - I say explicitly that Russian 'democracy' came about in 1991 and was then onwards gradually eroded by the remaining institutions of the Soviet Union, Economic Turmoil, International humiliation etc. I understand where you are coming from when you criticize my use of 'putin would make sure authoritarianism was no fad', because in a grander calculus, it was just Russia returning to an authoritarian status quo - but as I wanted the video to be self-contained I thought it would be a good ending to reinforce that Putin's ascent to power was the final nail in the coffin for Russia's foray into democracy. Finally, I think I do go over what nationalists wanted to some degree (although mind you I found in my research they were just as vague in practical aims, in many cases they did just vaguely point to the notion of former glory and contrast it with the poor state of affairs at the time). I discuss how Zhirinovsky wanted to end Russia's humiliation on the international stage, how nationalists wanted to regain a sense of superpower status (manifested in the quote about Soviet tanks by Yuri Vdovin). I also look at how nationalists were using economic turmoil to push for a shift away from democracy (Nevzerov quote 5:25) - which they obviously wanted to do away with.
I do agree I could have contextualized it slightly better - but I feel the time requirements were not worth a full on cold war contextual integration when as a self contained video it explained most of the realpolitik reasons as to why Russian democracy failed anyway. I agree with your final point though, that poverty definitely shifted them towards nationalism/authoritarianism in order to reclaim former 'greatness', which I believe the video makes clear but also states that it was combined with the distrust of democracy and international 'humiliation'.
Anyway, thanks for your criticism - I hoped you at least enjoyed the rest of the video
The graphic design for this video is miles ahead of anything ive seen. This is the (current) top of the style of channels like Vox use, and i think we'll see more and more channels take inspiration here
Design like a channel with 1.6M not 1.6K
@@frzen no its designed like 1791l
@SnoopyDoo hmmm. I'm not so sure about that unless you mean quantity of videos produced being content.
This appears to be a small production company or even individual, and the number of productions is very small. But the productions are informative to me and the graphics make it pleasing to watch.
Kurtsgezacht is interesting but they also have a crew working on their productions.
Good graphics are expensive. I would be interested to know the sources of funding for this channel
@@AsIf-pz9kt im pretty sure its just one guy with graphic design experience. Thats why there is so much down time between videos. Certainly worth the wait though!
I know that people take it for granted, but I really appreciate the hard work you put to give us, such quality videos.
Content, graphics, presentation.
Everything is world-class.
I am so angry I couldn't find this channel earlier.
Modern Russia was never a democracy yelstin literally ordered tanks to fire on the parliament building.
But since he was the west’s darling who did nothing to curtail nato expansion he is given a pass in history.
Incredible
I discovered this channel through you bro
Excellent recommendation.
@@Celestinedzn Same
This video is mind blowing bro, you can tell it’s a labour of love
Thanks for spelling labour correctly
How do you pronounce schedule
@@dominicthorpe2300 [xæ-yt-ËRH]
That's like saying why my New Years Resolution to lose weight failed. The people who you'd need to make democracy possible did not actually put in the efforts for it to succeed. Russia has 0 years of actual democracy, all that stuff in the 90's? Just a case of flux before the new czar took control once more.
That's the same argument marxists make about past failed socialist experiments. Blaming people instead of the political systems.
"The people who you'd need to make socialism possible did not actually put in the efforts for it to succeed. Soviet Union has 0 years of actual socialism, all that stuff in the 1920's? Just a case of flux before the new state capitalism took control once more."
All I'm hearing from these comments is "Russia bad, stupid Russia failed at democracy, the EU and US still seeing Russia as a threat instead of an ally isn't important at all bro cmon it was all stupid ruskies not knowing how to manage their own country.
They elected kleptocrats and then acted like it was democracy's fault
Russian democracy died when the russian supreme soviet was attacked by yeltsin. The 1993 parliamentary crisis, when the parliament building burned.
Please tell me more
@@Anton43218 Google "Black October" I'm disappointed this creator made no mention of it. The 1993 Constitutional Crisis was the pivotal moment for the young Russian Federation.
@@Anton43218Constitutional Conflict between the "Supreme Soviet" and the President = Yeltsin over legitimacy & power.
_Russia's existance_ is anti-demicratic.
Democracy in Eastern Europe has been usurped since the rise of it's nomenklatura and it's apparatchik.
The primary thing imo which killed the Russian democracy was the excessive power of Yeltsin, with the attack by Yeltsin and the army on the duma during the constitutional crisis being what killed amy hope of functional democracy.
Simultaneously Russia just has had too much of a centralized power structure to allow for the emergence of a democracy following the Mongol comquest and the establishment of Muscovy, as absolutism became entrenched in Muscovy and Russia from the get go. Multiple times there were calls and attempts at reforms, but the top down heavy system led to too much instability for it to happen as people were accustomed to a system where the authorities call the shots. The Decembrist revolt calling for constitution became immediately doomed as its main leader lost hope and nobody was willing to take over the revolt's command until it was too late. Alexander II was planning to establish a constitution as part of his reforms, but a radical reformost assassinated him for not having reformed fast enough and led to the later Tsars abandoning reforms. The Russo-Japanese war and WW1 broke the monarchy and allowed for the republic to come to power, but the continuation of the same war made way for the Bolsheviks to seize total power.
Democracy cant exist in a capitalist state. The USSR was the only democratic state in the world
"Waah waah democracy in Russia no work because stupid Ruzkis" God damn westerners learn to take a fucking loss
I'm disappointed that there was no mention in this video of Yeltsin's anti-democratic actions that he took, prior to designating Putin as his successor. Yeltsin intentionally and illegally concentrated power in the Presidency, despite multiple rulings from the Constitutional Court. He did this with the explicit support of western democracies. That information should also be part of the lesson that you're trying to teach here.
I think the title should be "When Russia tasted democracy and why it is a failure in their eyes."
Incredible quality!
The video is good, but I have the impression that you, like your friend Kraut, have a tendency of making very well done and researched videos, but get yourselves wraped in your own opinion and look for arguments to support your own view but presenting that opinion as a fact.
In this case, I've seen the criticism of expanding NATO to Eastern Europe like a mistake, forcing Russia into becoming an authoritarian nationalistic regime, but that's not a fact, and Russia's path into a dictatorial regime could have happened no matter what aproach Western countries had adopted. What was the alternative? Those countries had suffered under Russia's sphere of influence for centuries, NATO didn't play the long scheme of influencing those countries to fold them under their alliance; the same democratic principles were applied: those countries decided to embrace prosperity, democracy, and Western values, and we, as Westerners, didn't have much of a choice but accepting them. The ones who refused to join weren't force to do that. Refusing them would had sent the message to those countries that they are pawns and democracy is not a real goal for them, but to be Russia's backyard in an appeasement politic in order to ensure a possible and not probable democracy in Russia, a country with no real history of democracy and a big history of authoritarianism. As I see, in order to ensure the prosperity of Eastern Europe it was necessary to push Russia (and again, those countries had grievances against Russia well before the Soviet Union).
Appeasement policies don't really work most of the time. A contained NATO would have prevented the current war in Ukraine, most likely, but that would have mean crisis in other parts of the world given that Russia would be way more powerful and influential, and our principles of democracy would be doubt by the rest of the world: if we are not willing to defend those countries that do want to adopt our values, why would anybody else in the world try to adopt those values to being with?
Anyway, that's my view on the subject, my criticism won't go as deep as the Spanish Civil War one. Great video nonetheless, the disagreement doesn't take value for the video, quite the contrary, adds to the discussion.
Thanks for the input - on this video I actually challenged myself to argue a side that I wouldn’t usually take. I’m personally of the opinion that NATO expansion was fairly marginal, and only exacerbated existing nationalist tendencies.
@@IMPERIALYT completely agree with that opinion personally and that aproach of defending a stand you may not completely agree for the sake of the argument itself.
Great respect.
10:25 I disagree most geopolitical thinkers in the west believed that confrontation with Russia was over. From the end of history coming out to Yeltsin and Clinton hanging out the belief was that Russia would come good at some point
In 2012, Barack Obama completely laughed off the idea of Russia ever becoming a US geopolitical adversary again when his opponent brought it up in a debate. This video, although good at explaining the Russian perspective, also doesn't mention that the 1997 NATO founding act formally recognized Russia and NATO as non-adversarial, that Putin was at one point interested in joining NATO, Russia participated in joint military drills with NATO, and that NATO purposefully did not station nuclear weapons in new NATO member states. Not having nuclear-armed countries on Russia's borders is also one of the reasons why Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal.
@@Leitis_Fella Regardless of Obama's 2012 theatrics, NATO (an extension of US foreign policy) declared already in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, which led to the Russo-Georgian war and later, in 2014, to the Russo-Ukrainian war, which only escalated in 2022. Russia made it very clear from the beginning that it considered that expansion unacceptable, but NATO pushed on with it regardless, while mainstream politicians like Obama and Merkel played it down, seemingly as a ruse.
@hyhhy Russia does not dicate the foreign policy of INDEPENDENT STATES WHO DECIDED THEY WANTED TO ALIGN THEMSELVES TO AN ALLIANCE. Can the Russian ruling elite NEVER UNDERSTAND, THEY CAN BE RESPECTED BUT NOT BE TRUSTED?
Sorry I am tired of the theatrics of Russia's ruling elite. If NATO was out to get Russia, 1991 was that moment. Breaking Russia into pieces would have happened at that exact time because the union was essentially dead and all the cards was on the side of the West.
Time to end that delusion of empire because her neighbours are telling them to F-off. Russia can be a great nation again but never in the form which their deluded elite keeps on dreaming of.
@@hyhhy This begun long before 2008. First cracks in Russia-West relations appeared already back in 1994, when Yeltsin warned of a "Cold Peace" after Clinton declared in Budapest a shift from PfP (which Russia had just joined) to a more overt expansion of NATO to Visegrad countries. Ever since then, when NATO has gotten new members, or used its power unilaterally like in Yugoslavia in 1999, Russia has expressed their increasingly harsher opposition, and taken gradual steps away from cooperation towards competition in response.
It's not the fault of the whole NATO though, merely the USA that calls the shots. In 2008, Georgia and Ukraine were not allowed into Membership Action Plan, because France and Germany were rightfully concerned about the Russian reaction. It's only the US that is in the position to set the course of NATO. I have no doubt in my mind, that if US wasn't in NATO, NATO would have never expanded in this manner and ignored Russian opposition the same way since the day one.
@@goldbullet50 Yes, but the Ukraine and Georgia step was the final red line.
Another great video to add to the growing collection.
You’re so underrated! Amazing video! ❤️
This guys gonna grow fast i think
Dude ur chennel is so underrated
Very impressive video, awesome stuff!
Failed because they did not want to think for themselves.
I love this retrowave ambience you give these videos. I want more of this! (fist pounding desk like Nikita)
Why are your videos not at the top of the algorithm? These are so good
Lovely video, and while I disagree, thanks for actually looking at the facts instead of going "Russia bad" like 99% of the people when talking about contemporary Russian politics
Russia is bad, that's not really a question or an opinion thing. The question is how bad.
It looks like a Russian skill issue to me and they're blame shifting the corrupt oligarch problem on the west for not being even more giving.
Romania was antagonistic to the USSR even under their sphere of influence and their involvement in the Moldovan-Transnistrian war in 1990-1992 just made the situation crystal clear for us what our future is.
Oligarchs came into power thanks to western financial institution advising Russia to sell it's assets for pennies. It created these Oligarchs whose corruption nearly destroyed Russia.
People (and this video) often ignore the crimes Russia committed against its colonies and therefore why they viewed Russia as an enemy and not to be trusted. Russia was never punished for those crimes, nor has offered any meaningful apology. Eastern and Central Europe were rightly distrustful of Russia and their dislike founded in experience. Had Russia explored its guilt in a meaningful way it might have realised why it continues to be shunned.
This is why I'm so worried about some European countries closing the door to Russian citizens trying to escape Russia itself as they try to invade Ukraine. The EU needs to show Russian citizens, not Russian government but the Russian citizens, that no, they are not seen as enemies, that they are in fact welcomed, otherwise fascistic sentiment grows
It's too late for this
This, we will not impute to their people what their idiotic government brainwashed them into.
People who think like you are becoming a minority, sadly
EU has clearly made it clear that it sees all Russians as enemies.They are even confiscating holiday gifts.
Most russians support putin and his war. Letting them in Europe will only show that putinism pays off for them
A question: how much of NATO expansion was due to impetus from the West, and how much was due to the desire of the aspiring member states themselves?
Baltics and Poland were begging to join NATO. Clinton administration was bullish on even letting them join due to the belief that the cold war was over
for the west, it really seems like a forced choice: the eastern European countries wanted in, Democratic referendums said so. To deny them would signal political weakness or irrational subservience to a relatively weak (at the time) Russia, and would almost certainly have resulted in the election of new, pro expansion, politicians.
they wanted in, poland, checzoslovakia, chec republic, the baltics, a lot of these countries got treated like shit by russia, polands hate for russia goes back about 400 years, soviet tanks rolling through hungary and checzoslovakia when they wanted to be more independet from the soviet union all played a role.
@@sugandesenuds6663 When you start citing 400-year-old grievances as your pretext for belligerence, you look like either an idiot or a liar.
@@sugandesenuds6663 Poland's hate for Russia goes back far further
I feel like this video kind of underplays the agency of not only the Eastern Europeans who joined NATO (pretty enthusiastically, it should be pointed out) but also the Russians. The Eastern Europeans' hesitancy to trust a new, democratic Russia wasn't unfounded given that new states inherit the geopolitical aims and concerns of their predecessors, regardless of ideology. It wasn't a US pressure campaign that caused ex-Warsaw Pact states to join NATO as a middle finger to Russia, but an understandable reaction of liberated people to hedge their bets against the willingness of their longtime tormentor to respect their sovereignty. And while the West could have and should have done more to help Russia transition to liberal democracy in a smoother fashion, how much of the Russians' failure is really on the west? Plenty of post-Soviet states navigated the transition -- albeit imperfectly -- well enough to establish strong institutions, competitive markets, a liberal democratic orders that have, for the most part, stood the test of time. Why does Russia get a pity party, whereas a country like Belarus doesn't? Is Belarus' retrograde nationalistic revanchism the fault of the West, or is it the fault of manipulative authoritarian ex-CPSU cronies who held the keys from the beginning?
In reality, it wasn't the failure of the United States or the West to integrate Russia into a free, democratic world. It's not a failure of the West to be nice to Russia that causes Russian men to have a lower life expectancy than men in all but one of its liberated satellite states. It's not the West's fault that Yeltsin busied himself shredding apart Russian democracy as early as 1993. The blood of Russia's democracy is on the hands of Yeltsin and Putin and the millions of Russians who responded to crisis with a clamoring for more of the same, for another repetition of the regime that had just spent the previous fifty years oppressing not only its own people but subjugating millions further afield.
Good and informative video. i give it a 8/10
"Come on Russia! Get rid of that nasty communism and totalitarianism so we can all be friends!"
"Really? We can be friends?!"
"Yeah man! We can all be part of the same gang!"
"Awesome! No more communism then! Time to give democracy its time to shine! Glad to finally be friends with you!
"Friends? What are you talking about?"
Damn another S-TIER channel like Kraut,
if he sticks to it, ill see you guys at 100k subs
My understanding pertaining to how democracy in Russia failed is that in the early 1990s, Boris Yeltsin simply did not have sufficient love and commitment to democracy to enable democracy to endure.
@@yaya_is_real Well, he is a Democrat, so his love for democracy can't be surprising.
Great documentary. It explains the current Russian mindset
Great videos and subjects! And loving the vibes of the channel!
Keep it up!
Amazing graphics set within the ‘chapters’. Great essay
Oh my god, what a gem of a RUclips channel I have found. Your edits are pure gold, your voice is as captivating as the story you're telling here, and the music track is so engaging. This channel deserves far more subs...
Love your videos, please keep up the content
If I was given 1$ every time western thinkers overexaggerate the significance of Dugin, I would have become a millionaire at this point
They think he's some part of the administration and not some guy writing books for nerds and officers.
@@rhs5683 he is not even writing books guy. He is just funny shizo, who tells "based" thing sometimes. Literally main hero of aryan hyperborean edits on YT
@@biface1460 Why do you know, what I'm currently watching xaxa
I know him from and he's one of the last heart land guys out there, still dont know, why he's so famous out in the west.
First video I’ve watched from you but your quality is top notch. It’s seriously very very good, your insight and explanations are great. You should have 1000x more followers.
God watching this reminds me of Indonesia's democratization in the post-Suharto era, only with less irredentism
Really well done!
Damn thank you! I've taken a look at some of your videos and they look super clean
@@IMPERIALYT Thank you dude!
Every second of your videos are a true pleasure to experience, thank you for all of your hard work!
Russian nationalists painted the West as "evil". But considering that Nato and the West have repeatedly treated Russia as an enemy, and painted it evil, even when Russia was trying to cooperate with the West and adopt democracy, Russia isn't exactly wrong to paint the West as an enemy, because the West POSITIONED themselves as an enemy of Russia. Russia portrayed the West as an enemy, and they technically weren't wrong to do so.
This is historical revisionism if I've ever seen it. Some of your points are valid, but the conclusion is off track.
Nato's treatment of russia as the enemy is much of Russia's own doing as anyone else's. Intervining in Georgia and invading Ukraine doesn't make the West like them more, the opposite infact. Couple that with rigged elections and couple human rights violations and on top of that the 2021 ultimatum i wonder why nato doesn't like russia. Russians don't get that one country joining NATO is not once sided simple affair dictated by mUh aMerIca, people join that alliance for a reason, but it also must be supported by the people of that country, the nations of the alliance, and the joining country must fit certain criterias for having chances to join, such as being a fully functioning democracy
Nice video!
The mistake is to assume that democracy is the goal to humanity.
I like how this video shows where Russia feeling threatened by “NATO expansion” comes from without adopting or heavily sympathizing with this position. When Russia finally gives up in Ukraine, with or without some territorial gains, I wonder how we’re going to deal with the aftermath without allowing the Russian state to twist our intentions into seeing ordinary Russian folks as perpetual enemies.
The only way to do this is a massive economic and political assistance in building a democratic state (not like in 90's) so most of russians would have at least basic means to survive so they would have any time and resources to participate in a democratic process. It's ofc much harder than it was in microstates like Baltic countries but without that it will just come to another attempt on russia's neighbours in some future.
I can’t wait to see your channel blow up! You’ll be huge soon.
It's happening :)
Everyone has said it, but these visuals and content are next level man, your next up
Dear IMPERIAL, Thank you for a well developed piece. Understanding of course that it is not possible to explore some nuances of the current political state of Russia, there are some points that need to be detailed. First is that Dugan was never an influence in Russia, indeed his recognition is greater here in the West than it is there. Secondly the Russian people themselves bear a significant amount of the responsibility for their current circumstance. They were offered the hard and difficult path of Democracy, and they chose the easy path of Bread and Guns. While it is true that the Russian people had scant experience with real Democracy, they chose leaders they knew were lying to them, they may have had little experience with Democracy, but they "knew" authoritarianism when they saw it, they wanted it. Lastly what we call "Russia" is in reality a collection of very loosely collected cultures and peoples, it was always so, only Stalin and the KGB kept it all together. The absorption of what is euphemistically called the "Eastern Bloc" countries by NATO was a foregone conclusion, they had been stolen by Stalin and it was always expected they would go back to their historical roots based in Europe. Also the current Russian government is "not" a government, it is instead closer to Al Capone and the Chicago Mob, it is a band of wealthy Men desperately holding onto each others coattails terrified what will happen if the merry-go-round they have instigated should ever stop.
Calling Vladimir Zhirinovsky a nationalist isn't exactly correct.
He was imperial-nationalist, saying little about Russian as a nation / ethnicity, but more about Russian as a “Soviet people”, “People of Russia”.
Also, he was ethnically Jewish which makes his nationalism not ethnical, but more imperial-like / Dugin-like.
May i ask which music you used? Great video btw.
In order it goes Synthesia by Blake Ewing, The Wraith, Last Run & Midnight Chase by Tokyo Rose
@@IMPERIALYT thx!
What a beautiful presentation and a fascinating insight!
Yeah, how's that path to respect working out for Russia?
Two UN votes were 145-5 condemning Russias war in Ukraine. The contempt heaped upon Russia, especially with the abysmal performance of the Army, is larger now than ever before.
And I regularly opine to people, "we were afraid of this?"
i think russia wanted to be feared again, that its word ment something. Now we are all laughing at them.
@@sugandesenuds6663 Well, now i'm laughing at Ukraine.
Ofcourse, Countries will vote against war but if you look at bigger picture then nobody outside of west buys western propaganda about Ukraine war.
It's funny (and sad) because a lot of the description of Russia's failed democracy and the discontent of her people applies equally well to our "Western" "Democracies".
It kind of does. Yet, what would you propose as a solution? Would you justify Russia's subjugation of her neighbours as the correct course of action?
@@EarthForces IKR. Instead, we should do nothing about our failed political structures, brazenly lecture others about theirs and about their abhorrent practices of imperial subjugation, all while we ourselves engage in the very same abhorrent practices.
That's the correct course of action for sure and will keep us earning love and goodwill from the rest of the world.
What is that sick background music from around minute 3?
I believe you place too much blame on the West, acting like it treated Russia horribly. The enlargement of NATO was controversial even in the 90s, and I recall the American government under Clinton to be opposed to it. It was only the threatening to lobby and campaign in favor of his electoral opponents in the Republican Party by figures like Lech Walęsa and Václav Havel that eventually caused America to relent. Additionally, Russia’s foreign policy was already aggressive since independence, as it waged wars in Georgia, Transnistria, and Chechnya. This was no doubt cause for concern amongst Eastern European countries, and long before 1999, when countries like Poland and Czechia joined NATO. It is therefore problematic to view the West as a monolith and to describe NATO’s process of enlargement as “expansion”, since the decision to join is made by the people of the countries seeking membership. As we have seen time and time again, it is more Russian foreign policy that drives the enlargement of NATO, most recently observed with Finland and Sweden. Ukraine itself had no feasible NATO aspirations, and definitely no public support, until Russia’s invasion in 2014. Failure to be “accepted” into Western institutions also definitely partly or mostly lies with Russia or Putin. For example, Putin approached George Robertson, SecGen of NATO (1999-2003) when Russia still had aspirations to join NATO. “The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’” Russia never wanted to respect the process of joining such institutions, or the members of those institutions, or those applying to join those institutions.
I think your video is very well made and also researched but harmful and at times misleading in its messaging.
As someone who's first taste of voting was for EU/NATO membership from country closest to Moscow, i salute your understanding and present you a 🏆 for the best comment in this section, even if not many will see it. Sentiment in Russia when we joined was not one of today's, which in my opinion is the discrepancy from the attempt at neutral position here. Still not entirely inaccurate viewpoint of some moderate Russians at some point in time.
Dugin is the epitome of lack of nuance combined with childish paranoia.
I love the Lemmino-like style ❤
What was the music in the video?
There is another piece of the puzzle that's not being adressed.
The west prioritized the establishment of capitalism over the establishement of democracy.
"free markets" and "capitalism" are not exclusive characteristics of democracy and we have many cases where free markets were paired with totalitarian political systems (the US even favoured totalitarian capitlaism over democratic socialism and backed coups against the latter in many, many instances such as chile's pinochet regime, greece's papadopoulos regime, etc.)
This fast tracking of capitlaism during a crisis (also known as the shock doctrine) rapidly privatized industry. This paired with a lack of democratic institutions ensured that there would be mass corruption in the proccess that would hurt the russian population whilst enriching a small elite at the worst possible time, resulting in the russian population becoming rertile ground for totalitarian, nantionalistic propaganda.
Pretty much what happened in 1920s Germany.
@@EarthForces it is very diffrent germany was capitalist since 1871
@@EarthForces The SPD took charge once Kaiser Wilhelm Abdicated and held power for alot of weimar republic's existance. Not exactly prioritizing capitalism over socialist democracy
Western ideas expansion in Eastern Europe was/is the rhetorical fuel of nationalists/authoritarianists to assure power and public supports.
But this kind of political views have nearly 5 century of dominance of political discourse in Russia, totally lacking any valid European liberalism. Any tentative will have the same result of today Russia, supporting or not Yeltsin, expansion or not of EU and NATO, either a new Marshall Plan would failed without a bedrock of real democracy, Germany was "normalised" with heaviest political, military, economic investment of 3 country.
Maybe the only solution was a peaceful political and economic "occupation", as was after WW2 West Germany, but that time wasn't so peaceful.
Russia had could have honestly reflected on their communist and tzarist history but they chose not to because of one reason or another
This is… simply brilliant. my deepest appreciation for your work.
He doesn't miss
Is you learn history, history doesn’t repeat itself.
If you learn from history, big difference, history repeats itself.
Makes you think
No It doesn’t
That editing was 🔥🔥 god damn my man I would pay so much money for a tutorial on your editing style; i can puzzle together like 90% of what you do, but the way you manage to incorporate 3D into these motion graphics is amazing.
Exactly, the way he puts the 3D into these graphics what baffles me also. Truly genuine work.
0:05 “chaos is our master”
Please make more!
While this does not at all add moral complexity to the war in Ukraine, I do deeply sympathize with ordinary Russians than I did before - the reason why they support such a war. It’s not a war out of hatred, but perpetual fear. They are more afraid of the West than they are of Putin, not that they really love Putin all that much.
That just goes to show the russian people are mostly uneducated, conditioned and brainwashed into thinking that somehow the west wants to harm them. It is precisely this which makes most countries around the world despise the russian people not just the regime.
Russia is indeed afraid of NATO expansion as nothing good came out of west moving towards Russian borders.
A lot of this video really sounds like the author is blaming the West for Russia's failure to democratise. NATO involvement in Eastern Europe was at the behest of those countries, the sovereign states of Eastern Euroipe wanted to join NATO for their own protection and security, and most are successful democracies that are heavily integrated into the Western order (if such a thing exists). Russia's failure to follow the same trajectory is its own.
0:33 - more like 17 years. Ruzzia invaded Ukraine on 2014.
It is pretty apt that a cold war era stance and foreign policy essentially led to the war in ukraine.
Now with the two dimensional coverage of that war it is effectively perpetuating the unnecessary cold war mentality that fueled the policies that lead to this war.
It was easy to notice how america never really stopped the cold war footing after the 90s, and part of the reason for it likely has to do with the average age of the DC swamp rats who've been on capitol hill for longer than many of us have been alive, and predates the end of the cold war.
5:06 Zelensky: Bro Can I copy your homework?
Nevzorov: Sure just make it different so that it doesn't look like you copied it.
Zelensky:
Because Democracy is the God that Failed.
As Orban said, “Democratic freedoms in Russia are not a matter of the first or second order. The main question of Russia is to preserve its integrity. For the sake of this task, Russians are ready to sacrifice some democratic freedoms. This is not understood in the West”
Bollocks. Sacrifices never were Russia's foremost priority. From other hand it is acceptable losses for the higher ups.
When you pointed to how many years the Dugin book preceded the Ukraine invasion (1997-2022), I think what is often omitted, is that the actual initiation of Russian hostilities towards Ukraine was in 2014.
democracy doesn't work if your country is at war, the us democracy is collapsing now too, and there might only be democracy in europe left for a while
Amazing video kudos 👍
Has Nato ever attacked anyone ? Russia was never punished, even though it perhaps should have. Russia simply never accepted that they do no have a right to own other nations. And now we have to teach them the hard way.
Who give you those maps, imposible to understand. Turkey's map which you used is wrong
My man, if you listen to the Voiceover I’m saying that Russia wanted to turn Turkey into a rump state. That map is depicting Turkey in such a scenario, with some of their territories divested from them by Russia.
A rump state is a successor state to a country that has its territories drastically reduced. It’s not supposed to be a contemporary map of Turkey.
@@IMPERIALYT Sorry my bad. I couldn't understand that, because of my english.
Interesting content, but the weird background music is distracting.
What is the music used in a backgorund? It sounds amaizing
The problem was that Russia never had an established democracy. The peoples opinion never strongly mattered. Their chaotic years with Yeltsin was just a democratic movement. It was never established as "the" state form.The question would be rather how the siloviki and the KGB took Russia under full control.
1) The Silovici were aware of the impending collabs of the soviet union. Massiv monetary funds left the country to secure their grip over the country even after its collabs.
2)The silovici and other established officials stayed in place. The heads changed to a democratic Yeltsin changed, but the older system was still in place and waiting for their time.
3)The only problem was the decreasing grip over the exporting ressources, which slowly went to young bankers later known as oligarchs. This is the place were the real money and therefor the real power is. So the silovici slowly used their influence and hidden funds to get a grip into the sector. A perfect example is the rise of Putin in St Pertersberg. They worked with the organised crime to threaten and kill people to get the sea port and the oil terminal under their control.
4) They beginn the Chechen War take over the goverment and exchange the oligarchs.
So I would say, where as in other countries there is corruption, in Russia that is the system. The only currency is power. Siphoning money is the daily work. They live in a different world.
Well this is relevant now
Power concentrated is power corrupted.
Демократии не было даже в стране ее зарождения. Не может быть демократии там, где 1 человек выступает от лица тысяч. Особенно без обсуждения вопроса с людьми от лица которых он говорит. Попробуйте снять вашего избранника с должности, которую вы ему "делегировали". Скорее вас посадят, чем его снимут. Как не крути мы всегда приходит к власти одного человека.
Timestamp 10:25
Was this the opinion of the Russian elite or the people?
This is a terrible headache for Russia.
I really like how this points out that many of the anti-Russia policies and institutions such as NATO were kept around and used to further geopolitical objectives after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Most people lambast anything that’s not “Russia bad” now because of the conflict in the Ukraine; but this belligerence and anti western sentiment has been partially brewing through policies stretching back to the Bush senior administration
Are you blaming Eastern Europe in rejecting being Russian client-states? Also, the case for discussion and justification of ending NATO was up for the members of the alliance to decide NOT RUSSIA.
The Russians can change but were too arrogant and prideful to not accept the failings of their own system and the choices their elites made in the 1990s
Конечно можно говорить о поднятии национализма в России в начале 90х, но сейчас, хотя может я дурак или слепой, в России нет национализма, есть враждебность по отношению к Западу, но она не распространяется на отдельных простых людей. Цензуры СМИ при Ельцине не было вовсе, а Путин при своем первом, да и втором сроке был человеком желающим равноправных отношений с Западом, хотя конечно, сейчас это изменилось.
When economys fail.
Democracys fail.
Not always. The USA and UK and France made it through the Great Depression with their democracies intact.
@@baneofbanes True!
Infact (at least here in the U.S) those democracies further strengthened.
I suppose the inverse is true...
The only question I have is your opening question? The how makes no sense .....
Or Russia could have abandoned its illusions of greatness and just focused on making the lives of its citizens better! They have nuclear weapons, no one could invade/subjugate them. And maybe if they built a decent society, with strong democracy, robust economy and gleaming cities, maybe then Ukraine and other countries would get in line to trade with them and be partners. But no… Better to have an empty plate and a statue of a great power, whatever that is.
Great job with all the Russian names btw