A Post-Western Global Order? | Sarah Paine (Naval War College)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 мар 2024
- Full Episode: • Sarah C. M. Paine - WW... (October 2023)
Transcript: www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/073V...
Follow me on Twitter: / dwarkesh_sp 
Наука
Dr. Paine was one of my professors at the NWC. She's delightfully funny and engaging with a super sharp mind about her. Awesome stuff.
She hates Crooked Donnie --- I respect her for taking a stand on that
@@fredwerza3478 hating someone deserves respect now...
how sad
She is a liar or ignorant, telling people that Putin ruins Crimea tourist industry is lunacy.
I was there and see that so called industry with my own eyes.
Don't waste your time listening her, even if you will - better check facts twice
@@igornegovelov8854 You in turn are also either a liar or ignorant. You were there and saw what? The revenue accounts showing how many tourists come to Crimea now, vs pre-2014? No. All you saw was that it's a pretty place and a lot of Russians visit. Countries where the people actually have a moral compass are avoiding the place. But because Russians are all you Russians actually care about - and because the idea of a moral compass is probably repugnant to you - I'm sure it seemed like paradise.
@@fredwerza3478 She took a stand but not a reasoned one. It's the first thing I've heard her talk about that I thought was ignorant. Note that Putin didn't invade while Trump was in office. He waited until what he thought was going to be Obama-2 was in office. Obama wanted nothing more than to pretend Ukraine didn't exist, and Putin seems to have counted on Biden being the same.. Biden's inept performance in Afghanistan likely strengthened Putin's expectation as well, and the Democrats historically were the ones who were soft on military force. To Biden's credit, he stood strong and also built a coalition in the West to also resist the Russians. I disagree with a lot of what he's done elsewhere, but I applaud him for what he's done with Ukraine (he's not blameless though, if these reports about putting pressure on Ukraine not to target Russian oilfields is true). But this nonsense that Trump would have just rolled over and let it happen is just that - nonsense. The proof of that is that Putin waited. Now, of course, Trump's adolescent oppositional defiant disorder takes center stage, as it often does (and not just with him; with politicians on both sides of the aisle). He'd rather Biden fail in all things than ever agree with him; if Trump becomes president again, he might not change his stance, either. But if this invasion had happened on Trump's watch, the response would almost certainly have been much more dramatic, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Trump would likely have had to act unilaterally, though, since a lot of EU nations are like you - and in that sense, really no different than Trump himself. All you really care about is your partisan hatred. You can't put it aside and look at a situation without first asking your red-flag-blue-flag question, and that ends up being how you decide right-vs-wrong.
@@igornegovelov8854 Shows how doomed we are in the west.if this is doctor and professor teaching students this nonesense.
I can listen to her all day every day.
Copy that! She makes a lot of sense!
You shouldn’t.
I could as well. Also, I love it when people try to say she's wrong without explaining why.
Well she is a professor, I call it the professor effect.
@@markarmage3776While I recommend hearing other opinions. There is nothing wrong in listening to an expert in her field. Reminder, she is used to teach and even while expressing her opinions her tone goes to her default which is teaching, there is no counter argument other than whatever she presents.
Russia is a prime example of what happens when a few Ultra wealthy individuals, I.e. Oligarchs, rule a country based on their own personal benefits.
Man! Couldn't have said it better myself. Ukraine needs to stop doing that. Heck let's get rid of Zucky, Bezos, Gates and Musk as well.
Reminds me a bit of North Korea. YOu have the dude at the top, he says what goes, then a couple of fellow rich monsters who live comfy lives thanks to a gentleman's agreement with the monarch, and the rest of the country suffers.
You are absolutely right, Russian Oligarchs like Jamie Dimondski, Larry Finkski, Jeff Bezoski, Charles Kochski. Thank god Oligarchs don't run our country.
You mean the us right? 😂 how dare you
Sounds just like the US.
Just discovered Ms. Paine, and as someone who has studied history for decades I am humbled by how little I know. Incredibly bright lady.
It’s edited
She’s really enlightening
@@Stakker A walking, talking encyclopedia on history.
If you have studied history then you should know about the hundreds ot times people have been led astray to the wrong path by being blinded by fear of something that doesnt exist.
@@Silver_Prussianand the millions of times fools have thought themselves wise.
What a refreshingly logical dialogue and presentation!
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And the base things of the world, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, Yea, and the things which are not, to bring to nought the things that are: I Corinthians 1; 25-29
May 21, 2011 was the beginning of judgement day on the world { you were warned }
Natural minded men are in big trouble, Babylon (world system) is fallen. The Lord Jesus Christ is now ruling the nations with a rod of iron ( NOT for their good).
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at not all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh. Proverbs 1; 24-26
And it shall come to pass in that day, a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. Zechariah 14;13
'Tumult' = disbelief & confusion Division is the result for the destruction of mankind. ...have you followed world events lately?
spoiler alert: 'last day' = 2033 ( 17th day of 1st month ?? )
I find that refreshingly true... tectonic shift! A good question to ask these days... where are God's 200 million elect ? Maybe a million or two in Europe, same in N America, similar in S America. Half the world's population lives within 1000 miles of Singapore. Probably more of God's people in China alone than the entire western world! Africa and India, middle eastern nations comprise the remainder.
...the moat ain't so deep & wide, eh? Mercer County Pennsylvania USA (lifelong resident)
Fascinating and informative perspective from Sarah Paine - keep it coming!
It’s edited
She just showed up in my Google feed. Thanks algorithm! You got it right for once.
Fascinating is how people still fall for it lmao XD
"US is not a hegemon, nobody wants a world with US as a hegemon, Russia should be brought back into the 'maritime rules based order' for trade like Japan and Germany (still occupied after 80 years lmao)"
The problem is not everyone follow this concept. Some are obsessed with power and territory.
I usually avoid videos on politics because they tend to devolve into ambiguity, ignorance, and cognitive dissonance. This clip convinced me to give the full interview a chance, and it did not disappoint. Sarah Paine is exceptionally clear, knowledgeable, and grounded in everything she says, and you did a great job bringing out her talents.
Chadwick. superbly summarised ..no reply necessary
Agreed!!!
Yet she s wrong about 50% of the time.
@@MrFnfalpoint out where she is wrong please
Here you go. She forgot to mention Mackinder; the economic heartland theory. Mother of all conflicts. Global power in his essence. A free consultation for you.
I had never heard of the Maritime Order before. It appears to be the earliest form of international law on which stability and prosperity is based.
Yes. Admiralty law goes back to the 13th Century. Most of 13th Century admiralty law is still in effect.
Their bad guys are pirates. Our bad guys are privateers.
All international law is fundamentally based in the ability for nations to trade with each other on equal terms. Because China evolved outside Western influence, they’ve always, always only dealt with their neighbors as a superior, imperial power. That’s why they have so many issues adapting to the Maritime Order
ah yes the famously non-brutal and non-murderous British Empire
@@marcusrose6620 According to previous comments it predated the British Empire.
Russian troops are in Belarus and Kaliningrad, so they are right in the Polish border right now
Pedantry is fun, but rarely helpful.
Not in army sized numbers
@@solaireastora5394 yes, Wagner is on the border, also there are Russian nukes in Belarus
They are, but right now they can't do crap all with Ukraine in their backs. Besides, Russia doesn't even control access by land to Kaliningrad. With Sweden (who control Gottland) and Finland joining NATO, they don't control the Baltic.
I am sure Putin would go for the Baltic States (at least Lithuania) if he: a) Is able to get control over Ukraine, b) Builds his forces once again, c) Sees strong enough signs of the weakening of NATO.
@@dinismantas7265Lithuania literally signed a treaty staking its own independence on not interfering with Russia to Russia transit to Kaliningrad
I think with Russia, it's mostly about ego. They can't imagine the world where they join someone else's order.
The world: "Come, Russia, join. Be prosperous."
Russia: "I want to control it, otherwise it's foreign intervention."
Yeah and now they're a chinese commodity colony
Putin asked if he'd be allowed to join nato, got rejected without formally applying.
US now calls the shots
@@veloboy1 that was never seriously proposed or considered. Stop painting russia as a victim lol
@@veloboy1 He would have been required to give up the security of access to his their nuclear weapons. He was never going to do that. Deal ender right there.
Russia tried to join. EU said NO. NATO said no. Trying to go western saw Russia lose HDI and GDP every single year 1988-2001, with TRILLIONS of dollars siphoned out into the West under the regime of western puppet Yeltsin who saw 3 civil wars in his term and shelled his own parliament with western counsel. Russia tried to join the West and the West exploited it to try to destroy and bankrupt the country. The West had its chance to prove to Russia it had changed. Russia has learned better.
I would love to hear her debate John Mearsheimer!
I watched a two and half lecture on Mearsheimer branch of realism and I wasn't impressed. I have been watching several of her videos and I find that her reasoning has a lot more depth than Mearsheimer's. Off course, I still would have to learn a lot more about their work (not sure I have the time).
John is a dork. He's a CCP shill
Also would like to hear her opinion or speak with Peter Zeihan. 👍
@@dinismantas7265Then read Ron Unz.
Mearsheimer is nothing other
than a broken jukebox!
This Lady Knows her Stuff....
No she don't
no she don't :)
She is total ignorant in some cases
@@hereLiesThisTroper Three words, one giant mistake. She talks for 7 minutes and does not make one. :)
Oh really. Please give some examples and tell us why you know better.
@@aeiouaeiou100 maybe because i live in Russia.
How many times she was in Russia? (dont't think it could help her with such mind set)
It's just unbelivable how many educated people lecturing total mess about our country.
It's not about do they like us or hate or whatever, the main thing that lots of their words, thoughts and conclusions are too far from reality.
You guys in the west made up some virtual model of Russia and bulding up all your knowledge and plans above this very shaky fundament.
At some points and some cases your vurtual model is correct, but it doesn't help.
Most things i hear in western media is ignorance, ignorance and one more time ignorance.
And then we hear moaning "Oh.. sanctions doesn't work", "oh we underestimate this", "oh we underestimate that"
Pathetic
I highly recommend her book, _The Wars for Asia._
To be brainwashed. Come on over to live here and see.
@@jjhoughton2812 are you asian ?
@@Unknown-jy7ku He's an immigrant who's loves Thai age of consent laws
@@RooTheGuy 🥴
@@RooTheGuy💀😂😂😂
this lady is fantastic. the wealth and glamor that developed societies provide can't be taken my force. game theory always proves being honest and trustworthy wins in the long run.
This misses a big consideration. Putin isn't motivated primarily by developing a wealthy country. Like fundamentalist Muslims, Putin believes that he is the keeper of Eastern Orthodox morality and doesn't want him and his country to live in a Western liberal world.
Yep
True enough. However this ignores the hard fact that it’s money that makes the world go around. It’s one thing to defend something grand like morality but without the resources to defend it you are fighting a losing battle. Putin will fail because he’s destroying the living standards of the very people he is supposed to defend.
This is a westernized look by people who know the conflict from far. Putin, like Stalin before him, wants to preserve the great Russian Empire and Soviet dream. Although I don't agree with Dr P about Trump letting Putin take over Ukraine (Trump is a partner of Kolomsky who is the oligarch behind Zelensky) I do agree that Putin isn't good for the general majority of Russian population (about half a million dead soldiers show that ) but he's , like Stalin before him, writing history and forging the past to make his time look a success
He only wants a big Russia.
And this is a fundamental problem, because the nations bordering Russia do not want to be part of Russia.
Putin could have spent his effort building a strong and prosperous Russia, but he didn't. He has chosen a policy plan that inevitably leads to conflict with Russia's neighbors.
Riiight. A former Soviet trained Ex KGB officer who has publicly lamented the collapse of Soviet union is the patron saint of the Orthodox religious order. You people need to stop sniffing your own farts. Putin is corrupt and old but stupid he is not. Also If he were a religious fundamentalist like you so claim then why hasn't he initiated a 21st century reconquista on their southern holdings that are under their dominion with the same religious zealousness that you claim Putin possesses ? He is a competent statesman, to realise that you would have to stop drinking the sanctimonious propaganda that your own govts put out and learn to read between the lines. There was a Russia before Putin, you lot living your privileged lives fellating yourselves on winning elections are never going to recognise that ideological fetishes are subservient to security. Ironically the same reason the Ukrainians are fighting tooth and nail, western left liberals like to j3rk0ff to the fact that they are championing demookrazy, but self awareness and recognition of reality was never their strongsuit, Russia is your adversary and you want to see them fall, that's a plain and simple enough motivation, that's honest but wrapping yourself in insufferable propaganda just makes you blind to reality. I mean there was talks of Ukrainians beating back the Russians, sure the Ukrainians have overperformed surprising even most American analysts and observers but war fatigue is real and Russians have but forward to match.
I would love to hear she debating John Mearsheimer
Would love this as well. This would be a battle of Wizards lol.
There would be no debate, they're of one mind on everything lolol.
Measheimer would fall apart very quickly, as his misguided theories are based on notions and top-view assumptions. By comparison to Sarah he knows very little about Russia / Ukraine.
Mearsheimer is Sanders Commie.
I don’t want to listen to commies. Sorry, not sorry.
It is refreshing to hear someone talk about these things in a way that makes sense, that resonates.
Thank you so much Mrs. Paine, I am so happy about the things you said, so clear and thoughtful.
The world isn’t only about land or economic strategy - there are profound psychological factors at work.
If you listen to her, she talks about that. Here she is talking about the psychology of security.
@@charliesmith4072 Not really she only cares about money. She doesn't care about preserving cultures.
@martinpalm5 cultures that seek to conquer others as a form of territorial expansion are themselves obsessed with power.
So really wtf is your point
That is what she is saying, her main message.
Psychology.
In the last year of the Obama administration, the U.S. established the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which provided U.S. military equipment and training to help defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million for this initiative.
The Trump administration in 2017 agreed to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, later committing to sell $47 million in Javelins. - AP
That's when Putin was sure he would win easy. Clearly he knows he needs Trump back to undo all the help. You just proved the point that Trump will bring death and destruction to Ukraine but also to the world economy and inflation 3x what has been recently.
Yes!! in the trump administration did not want Ukraine join NATO but they didn’t want them to be able to defend themselves because America in UK promised that when you can get rid of their nukes in 1991
Then trump tried to hold up 400 million dollar in aid. Trump was trying to use a mafia carrot and stick approach to get Ukraine to do what he wants. The man is an a-hole.
Trump was pissed off because the Ukrainians didn't do what he wanted in that Biden son issue.
Just 47 million in Javelins. You've got to be shitting me.
This interview is the most important in the last 10 years, we may be able to say.
I love this lady, and so happy that she went out there and said these things in face of all the under-informed foolishness that is roaming around on the internet. I am thankful for that.
However: although her positivity is absolutely supported, it's more valid regarding the direction of the thinking rather than the maturity of the system. First off, many countries as we all know, do not adhere to the rules laid down. Some exercises the ability to quit said structures, and rendering the agreements moot: one can quit agreements like the Paris Accords about climate by the US, or not ratify an International Criminal Court Rome Statute and the US didn't even sign it (Russia later withdrew it's signature, day after invading Crimea in 2014). Then there is the fact of lack of enforcement and an almost total lack of accountability, aside from some words being uttered here or there. No accessibility, for quitting or going failing to fulfill said agreements, nor any to thoroughly regulate all of the regulators themselves. Ethical fishing is awarded for example with little to know followup on actual fishing practices. Then, each organization is lacking a significant part of the globe as its members, or their members aren't equal in them, and like organizations around the globe don't or hardly cooperate: in case of climate, or trade and so on, therefor the great practices are only present in specific cooperating regions, and even there those practices are lacking and not stranger to favoritism or strong arming. As the western world enjoys great movement of goods, services and people, but that only narrows down to goods when it comes to Asia. Labour laws are also fairly great or good in the west, but not so much in Asia or Africa. So, while I completely share her ideas and her positivism of her thinking, we need to acknowledge that this system is far from complete. I personally don't see the reason how a global enforcement body could hurt this system, if we accept that necessity inside states. Second we need to involve other nations on an impartial status, coalesce other institutions into one, and make them obligatory to follow after signature and or ratification. Investigation bodies need to established too to monitor these organizations, and this also need financial input from all the participants. Yes, I am going towards a world government, but the answer to corrupt government, the anti-thesis may be, is not the demolition of it and anarchy, but the fixing of it and getting rid of corruption in it. Humanity is going towards better self-organization, so to deny this is to deny the progress of our civilization. We didn't go back to omnipotent Pharaohs after kings, but advanced towards a more precise and nuanced form of governance.
What a treat it was to hear your insight. Thank you!
Whether some in the US today "believe" it or not, we live in a very interconnected world. To say "I don't believe in that" to such a statement is equivalent to saying you don't believe in trees - this exists whether one "believes in" it or not. The question - if in your heart you truly think an interconnective world "sucks" - is this: 'What do you propose to stop 'it' from 'sucking?'"
Some thoughts. We CAN give up buying windmills & solar panels from the 7th and 9th, respectively of the top 10 largest manufactures of those - China - because we have centuries of oil & natural gas reserves beneath our domestic Lower 48 feet as well as in the subsurface of allies on both our north & southern borders. We CANNOT in the immediate term give up buying cheap clothing & household goods/appliances from China or the plethora of other things we import from Western Europe and former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe; we CAN jettison those imports someday DECADES from now, perhaps, if we set in motion today to re-onshore much of those nations' currently-imported industrial production, but we haven't the raw materials domestically to support those processes and would still be dependent on many other nations for such commodities . . . nations with whom we'd need cordial & mutually beneficial trade relations.
And even if we did all that, we'd need a workforce educated to participate in that economy. In the century leading up to and 2-3 decades post-WWII, we emphasized basic math (arithmetic, geometry), reading comprehension & writing skills needed to produce a relatively literate manufacturing workforce along with a solid cadre of collegians learning skills directly applicable to the job market you envision (engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and, yes, those who chose military service as a deliberate - not last resort - career path to protect our nation). We don't have that today . . . and it would likely take an entirely new generation of retrained educators at all levels, especially K-12, to produce the educational system required to yield that workforce. Likewise, it would require a massive re-education of our populace to understand that "compassion" is spelled "J-O-B" (the dignity of meaningful work, building skill sets, advancement and the attendant financial independence & personal sense of self-worth), and is not spelled "S-U-B-S-I-D-Y."
@eah8185 Does your implication include we get rid of all tariffs; subsidies to farmers, agricultural conglomerates, defense contractors and big businesses (disguised as tax breaks)? Plus with today's logic, wouldn't someone be called a "sucker" or "stupid" for joining the military?
The rust belt was collapsed and entire towns destroyed to ship those jobs off to China. And the whole planet got wealthy off of it while the rust belt was left to rot. So, how did the global order work out for them? And when they dare complain, they are called stupid, so why would they want to participate in that system? Pittsburgh was left to wallow in poverty for decades and was the only city to revitalize itself, and in return for all their struggles, they were replaced with green cards.And not so much as an apology uttered or "prosperity."
And then the last steel company was bought by Japan and they were told they should be grateful for it being saved.
Oh noes, what will everyone do with cheap junk from China, when all the belongings needed such as appliances was already being produced here? But then you want those same people to join the military and police the oceans to protect supply lines that destroyed their homes.
There is already a new trade system being set up and that was NAFTA 2.0 as production is being moved to Mexico from China. Making Mexico a bigger trading partner than Canada just last year. This is why Canada wasn't happy with it and also reduced the need for policing global trade.
During lockdown, people did start producing clothing because with modern technology it can be done in much smaller spaces and fewer people than depending on sweatshops to make us clothing out of plastic, which is what synthetics are. The US has a massive agriculture base now where natural fibers can be grown here. The Chinese even found muslin again, which was a lost, lightweight material.
Wind and solar was never considered viable, and again, it is China making the money off of that when they control 80% of rare earth metals. Nuclear and geothermal, which can be put on a house, are more viable energy solutions. They also make all our ships and now want to make our cars so what is the replacement for lower skilled work other than just giving it to someone else? Or does everyone have to choose janitor or live in a cube writing code?
The capitalists like the idea of globalization because they can make money laundering the petro dollar through all these countries.
Like your comment. Makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the left has so infected the minds of our educators at all levels and ingrained in them a fanatasism that has been fanned by the vast majority of the media, which has resulted in not just the left, but the democrat party as well as millions of people who rely on one source of news which has grossly misinformed perfectly reasonable and smart people into thinking that anyone who doesn't agree with EVERYTHING that they think are a bunch of racists or sexists and etc.
So it has become just as former KGB agent Yuri Bezmonov (hope I spelt it right) had predicted in the 1970s after defecting to the US from the USSR. That through the successful imple of "ideological subversion" , "the US would reach a point where in spite of incredible amounts of information that is easily available, the two sides would not be able to come to an agreement on even the most mundane of issues."
Back then he said that "ideological subversion" had already begun in the US and that he was absolutely stunned at how fast it took hold and spread around the country. That in the KGB's wildest dreams, they never could have imagined how easy it was and how fast it had spread.
Normally I wpuld have no doubt in Americans ability to come together as a nation, together again. But I fear that there would have to be some miracle for that to happen..... or a nightmare...
I don't know who said it, but it sums it up perfectly. "Republicans just think that democrats are wrong and misguided. Democrats think Republicans are evil."
The democrats have gone so far to the left on everything that it defies understanding. But the democrats and the media brand Republicans as "extremists" and "domestic terrorists" and etc. But it's the democrats that are willing to not just cross, but sprint past lines that have never been crossed in the US, setting dangerous precedents seemingly with no thought of or regard for the future possibility of the same being done to them.
In the past, if a party lost an election or a couple of them, they would get the message and readjust thier policies and stances to bring more people into thier party. But today's democrats do not seem to be willing to do that. It's especially concerning that up till 2020, you would hear democrats talk about election security and potential voter fraud and how risky electronic voting machines that were made in China were to free and fair elections. But after 2020, you cant find a single democrat that would share those concerns with anybody, let alone speak about them..... Why? Why have the democrats, every single one of them, all of the sudden become believers that there is no voter fraud, at all, and to suggest that there is makes you a threat to democracy? Why have they become so fiercely opposed to something as simple and easily obtainable as a voter ID, calling it racist, when it clearly is not? Why do they seem to be governing in a way that suggests they have absolutely zero fear of accountability, by being voted out of office or otherwise? For those reasons and many, many more, I don't think the democrats would be prone to taking a beating in an election and readjusting thier policies because they got too far away from where most Americans are. It's almost like they feel like they can't lose..... why?
Remember that democrats think Republicans are evil, ESPECIALLY TRUMP. To them, Trump winning re-election is the literal apocalypse. Now, if you felt that you were going up against a force of evil, being led by Satan incarnate, then doesn't "by any means necessary" not just become acceptable, but a necessity? If you felt the apocalypse was coming, but there was something you could do to prevent it, wouldn't you do anything to prevent it? So why then, is it so inconceivable to think that there could have been cheating in 2020 and that there will be cheating in 2024?
If democrats believe even a fraction of the things about Trump that they've accused him of, then wouldn't it be expected for them to cheat? To avoid the apocalypse?
The only thing is that Trump winning will be the apocalypse.... for them and the death grip that the establishment and deep state have had on power for longer than anyone has been alive. That is an apocalypse that needs to happen.
First maritime power was Portugal which pushed Ottomans out of spice trade, and Dutch later kicked them till UK emerged as top dog, until they were replaced by USA in WWII..It was less bloody then fights between France and Germans but still hard from peaceful.
Pretty sure greece and rome and carthage etc. etc. have all been maritime powers.
But will Maritime Power hold against Orbital Power? Will either be able to get the resources from the Land needed to maintain the infrastructure of that power in an age of declining Demographics and Skill? Will more technological sophistication survive harsh Solar Cycles(another Carrington Event)? We were just hit with several X5 flares. X8-10 destroys infrastructure that will cost Trillions to rebuild and time and Minerals we dont have. The more complex a structure, the more fragile.
Tech Advance biases us to look to the future fixing all our problems with todays solutions. But Natural Disaster can reset the whole clock so to speak.
Global brands in 1968. USSR = 0. South Korea = 0.
Global brands in 2024. Russia = 0. South Korea = LG Lucky Goldstar, Samsung, Kia, Hyundai.
Why? How?
Thank you Ms. Paine. INCREDIBLE.
I like her presentations and she is obviously very bright and skilled. However, I think a continental outlook is one of necessity. If someone can drive tanks across your border you have a different view. The US (and for that matter the UK, Japan, etc) have the luxury of lots of water and/or very weak neighbors to insulate them from invasion.
Well, Russia has little ports or opportunities for maritime trade without crossing west controlled areas.
All middle powers in Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Italy) have switched to the maritime concept.
Just funny to me how the “win-win” is exclusive to western/white powers and in the future when there’s less and less resources it’s gonna be China and India who will suffer the most…. The absolute extraction of resources out of China and India is the most masterful manipulation of a population in modern history that will be studied in the future
She covers that- "if you look at europe as a peninsula"
Yes, that's the historic origin of the difference and I'm sure Dr Paine meant it as well. However, fortunately the way history has played out, today you don't even have to have a coastline today to be more "maritime" - just have friendly neighbors that share the same view.
2:05:00 but to be honest, while she says the Chinese would be unsatisfactory strategists all the while repeatedly quoting Sun Tzu (death grounds). Quoting the greatest Chinese strategist of all time more than anyone else.
@raplopez4258: Just because she quotes Sun Tzu doesn't imply that the Chinese leadership is somehow as smart as Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was exceptionally brilliant, and dimwitted communist political hacks are no match for Sun Tzu's strategic ability, just because they are members of the same race. Consider Carl von Clausewitz, a brilliant Prussian strategist. He was every bit the equal of Sun Tzu despite a different era of history. But that connection didn't stop the terrible German strategies of the 1930s where they chased away the vast majority of their intellectuals and scientists and artists, leaving them a rump of the nation they once were. Nor did it stop their epic blunders of the 1940s where they destroyed themselves and most of Europe.
@@ilovemuskoka not for nothing, but consider the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry over the last 30 years, with the increasing amounts of 😩🔫 due to economic despair and epidemic levels of 💉, those dimwitted communist political hacks basically instituted a one-child policy on the US. They're moving the pieces they can move, and they're buying all the oil they can drink from Russia.
From some time ago. The modern Chinese are nowhere near that good.
I love Sarah Paine. The oligarchs would indeed make MORE money if they joined the club. The oligarchs have a feudal view of power and wealth: its based on land, or more aptly, based on "protecting your turf." In the past, power and wealth were, in fact, based on land, which is a zero sum game. By definition, if YOU get more land, that means there is less for ME! With the industrial revolution, especially as it played out in America in the 19th Century, the elites realized that robust economic activity CREATES wealth. (Crops, housing, new factories, speculative investments, new inventions.) If the barons of that age saw you making a fortune - like, say, Andrew Carnegie - they didn't (always) shun you, they invited you to join their country club so you could buy shares in each other's enterprises.
The real American genius was then to assure that private contracts could be fairly enforced in the courts. The little guy could win.
In contrast, even today countries like Russian and Mexico are so corrupt - top to bottom - that the little guy loses every time. EVERY TIME. No, our system is not perfect, but it is not utterly and wholly corrupt - despite what they taught you in the Ivy League. If you dispute this analysis, why are these countries, gifted with natural resources and brilliant, industrious people lagging behind us so profoundly?
No nation, no tribe, no organized group of people exercising power and influence has ever been "perfect." Think. What would that even mean, "perfect" in the context of human history?
I'm a progressive, but I'm not a Progressive. I do not fall into the error of judging history using the same moral yardstick that I use to judge others and, if I am honest, myself.
We in the west should be proud that we have advanced the social progress of the world. If you deny that, explain to me why - ala Stephen Pinker - the world is objectively a far, far better place today for the thriving of the human person than it has ever been in the past.
America & American values and courage played a major role in the world we have inherited from our forebears. Let us strive to pass on this sacred legacy to generations to come.
Keep the Faith, Baby!
How does national debt play into this formula? I’d love to understand how the speaker sees what we are doing as sustainable.
Yes because in Europe there's a war every 20 years big ones so by joining NATO Europe hasn't been in a war or should I say 3 war's
We found away to talk
I really enjoy your lectures. I learn a lot every time I hear you speak.
Does Sarah have a Twitter account?
Or a Mastodon account?
good framework for discussion indeed: land power v sea power, might is right v rule of law...
Are you stupid or just trying hard to be so ? Sea power doens't automatically predispose one to pursue "rule of law". Sea power leads to maritime imperial holdings. UK, Spain, Portugal, Dutch, Belgians. They explicitly use might is right to serve their mercantilist interest, Nothing wrong with that. But framing your self as some how morally above the fray just makes you look stupid when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Look up how many wars the brits had to win and how many negotiations and machinations they had to initiate to forge their empire. Might is Right is the Universal truth, the very foundation of anthropo supremacy over planet earth. Same reason why people sitting on the other ends of the planet can fight on a common platform with words.
Fantastic discussion. Sheds a whole lot of sense on world order. Explains a lot.
What a brilliant yet just simply pragmatic/historical view on geopolitics. You listen to her and you just think...obviously...why didn't I see it this clearly?
Thanks!
Very interesting. Not the angle I'm used to hearing but she makes a lot of sense.
It’s exact same angle you hearevery time. Ha ha the west is the best. Ha ha Russia sucks, don’t forget Putin evil!
It's interesting that the ruzzian term for an oligarchs exclusive zone means "feeding area"
Ukraine gives them more "feeding zones" to keep the elite support.
She's absolutely right on her accessment. 👏👏👏
I've been exposing those delirious Imperial russian lies for 2 years, she's saying it beautifully! Sharing this.
Imagine what would happen if we spent money on our infrastructure and electric grid instead of Iraq and Afghanistan? How much of would we be? How about money to develop a western supply channel for batteries and chips.
This is taken from the longer interview here: ruclips.net/video/YcVSgYz5SJ8/видео.html right?
What I wonder about is imbalance trade. For example, if country A does things to have more money out go than income it must use any means possible to evolve into more money coming in than going out. Country B experiences tariffs by A so A can off set its losses. Then country B has to figure out how to counter its new losses. Sometimes countries even resort to war to get what they want. Would it be possible for country C to think self sufficiency so it doesn't Need anything from any other country. Why isn't self sufficientcy a world wide goal; live with what you have? Otherwise there will never be peace!
Describing the British world order in the 18th century as win-win is ludicrous. Does she know how the Dutch and Brits enforced "free trade"? Does she know the Brits used piratery (aka breaking all sort of maritime rules) to catch up and then overcome the Spanish Empire? Does she know it wasn't free trade but it was monopolised by the East India Company and other companies? Has she ever heard of the world "colonialism" ?
She is a narrative parrot that only impresses the midwits and kids in elementary school, of course she doesn't, it's not her job to know those things.
I think she is not as simple and stupid as her explanations. Well, maybe.
@@gyozop I think she deliberately simplifies history in order to fit the narrative of the "Holy West", but maybe she is an awful historian without any hidden agenda. Both are valid.
In the era;y days before an Empire, yes Britain used privateers, but as time moved on it created international structures and moral frameworks such as abolition of world slavery at great cost to itself. You’re welcome.
@@jimbodimbo981 the abolition of slavery argument is bs: the development of industries required "free" workforce coming from rural areas. The conflict between the Southern Confederation and the North in the Civil War was based on this premise: thousands and thousands of free slaves moving to big cities to be employed in factories. It wasn't an act of good for good sake and to believe it was it's pure self-delusion. If it was slaves would have gotten reparations, not slave owners.
she is one of the most knowledgeable people on geopolitics involving the military and InterContinental trade
00:45 but there are Russian troops on the polish border....
If Russia joined the "Europa Club", then its oligarchs would creep in to positions of power in the EU governing body and exert influence at that level.
Unlike every other country in Europe because the west never commits crimes no never lmao
Ooh just like the joo?
Rehash of Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" from 1997.
Brez's Grand Chessboard was envisioned with regard to USSR and rising China, and india being intermediate power. Now USSR is gone, Russia is an intermediate , aggresive nuclear armed power, China is a continental superpower in Asia, India is on rise, and Islamic World in in disarray.
Thanks, Dwarkesh Patel.
I’d love to see her question presidential candidates and be given some time to correct them. Would be some great tv
If she has written any books that deal with the topics discussed here, I will buy them. If not - she needs to get right on that.
She’s written several. A quick google search will show at least 6.
She’s brilliant
7:27 Your prosperity !!! There you go ma’am. Saying the quiet part out loud.
Great video!!!
How does collective sanctioning fit in?
If you dont behave, you are not allowed to trade
@@SamiNamiSo the United States should have been sanctioned for Iraq? No because it is my rules applied by me.
@@philognosis6409 Maybe it should have, maybe not. But that is irrelevant. Every new case is a new chapter. "X should get away with it because Y got away with it in the past" is a terrible way of conducting affairs. It leads to an endless cycle of violence that never ends.
(There are also differences in details. The US did not invade Iraq for territorial expansion.)
@@philognosis6409 The US did not conquer any land in Iraq, it's different from Russia.
@@philognosis6409 Whataboutism strikes again!!
‘Rules based order’ 😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣
Rules for thee not me. She just sounds a lot to me like another talking head who has not spent enough time in the real world.
@@JohnsJohnson-ns5xm 100%
@@JohnsJohnson-ns5xm While I don't think what we have is a perfect "rules based order" by any means, the fact you have that opinion shows you've never travelled outside the castle walls she speaks of. Or even bothered to look over them. Things aren't perfect here by any means but you really have absolutely no idea just how hellish things can get and often are without even the flawed system we have here.
@@TheAndroidNextDoor analysis. Traveled all over the world with the seventh and fifth fleet bombing people into submission and then visiting ports traveled European northern Africa extensively. The sad part is you want to compare the US to some of these shit hole place. What I’m saying is we are one of these shit hole places and we never used to be. I am 65. I’ve watched things go down the toilet extensively in my lifetime and for many cases there really doesn’t seem to be a real reason except the moral decay of our society and all the problems that go with it so yeah I have traveled extensively and I’m basing my views on my personal experiences, I’d say the only place I’ve traveled in the last 30 years that I’ve seen uplift itself would be Germany from the 80s when I was there extensively till now and I watched their society change from worst to better and specially Berlin.
@@JohnsJohnson-ns5xmThanks for your analysis. If its worth anything i’m 26 and 100% agree with you. I study history and see the crap the west (specifically the US) has pulled and is doing especially now. It’s sad. We are doing exactly what we are accusing other countries of doing. And last i checked, us normal citizens have absolutely no say in our own (democratic) US government anymore. They literally do whatever they want and get away with it.
Back in the late '90s and early 00's i heard on 'conspiracy theorist radio shows' quoting people from thinktanks such as the Trilateral Comission and Council on Foreign Relations the prediction that(paraphrase) "The US citizen will have to get used to a lower standard of living", "The Dollar will share Reserve Status in a 'Basket of Currencies" " and "it will be a Multi-Polar World but we can make War obsolete"
Can PBS please give this woman a weekly show? Please?
Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule
This article is more than 2 years old
George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’ - The Guardian
Yes well signing up everyone right up to the Russian border while Russia is in the queue, THEN refusing Russia, would start a war. Oh. Wait.
It's a sad symptom of the status-based Russian society. If Putin would lower himself to become only a peer of countries like Romania or Belgium, the Russian society would perceive him as a weak and therefore replaceable leader.
Because Putin wants to stay being the leader of Russia, and the elites around want to maintain their status as well, he's locked himself into this 19th century 'great continental power' play.
@@daliborbenes5025
I don't think any country takes kindly to being humiliated.
Case in point: Congress is seething about TikTok because it's a manifestation of China's success over America's economic darling: all the Silicon Valley companies which were displays of its advanced economy.
America lost in the free market, so they want to push China out. They'll certainly try to.
@@daliborbenes5025its a guess that most members in EU and NATO knew how much Putin had done to continue the diastrous corruption in Russia. Although he spent much on rebuild St Petersburg and Moscow.
Totally agree about Russia
I like how she prefaces her following statements at the start with, "My views." This is an important distinction vs trying to pass off her concepts as inarguable law. It really plays to the topics she talks about, about powers that work well with others and those that don't and the success thereof.
I want to hear more of this lady.
great comments & views!
Neocon
Tell everyone you don’t actually know what the word means without telling everyone😝🤣😂🤡
You should read the Istanbul peace treaty before you tell us what peace without US involvment should look like in Ukraine. Its not that hard to go to the sources.
She's saying nonsense
@@star-gs9kh Says the expert at nonsense🤣😝🤡
You’re on point!
Are maritime powers members of the Trade Federation in Star Wars?
Love you work.
ABSOLUTE GOLD ! :) Greetings from Poland. ;)
Smooth talker but she's certain of the unknowable
No shit. She ignores that Putin invaded Crimea under Obama in '14. Waits for Biden in '22. Then, has the balls to say, "if Trump were President, Russia would be on Polands border" I'm no Trumper...but the facts are Putin gets aggressive when D's have the White House. If I were POTUS, I wouldn't let her near my NatSec apparatus.
I have never heard anyone who is this knowledgeable about geopolitics as ths lady.
THIS WOMEN IS BRILLIANT!
Didn't hear anything post-western here
what would that look like ? What is there other than trying to find a way to slove an issue in a peaceful way ? War ?
@@FlashdogFul28 Sarah Paine only talks about what she calls a "maritime order" of economic cooperation that is centered in the West. Her response to "continental" powers like Russia and China is that if they do bad things, they will be sanctioned and excluded indefinitely from this West-centered order, hurting their economic development, until they reform themselves.
Well, those countries are building their own economic and security alliances (BRICS, SCO, etc) independent of the West. That's the most post-western thing happening but it wasn't mentioned at all.
Because she doesn't know ?? Or not paid to speak on it. Or uncomfortable truths a propagandists avoid ?? Ask why suddenly this lady is all over the RUclips. Somebody is propping her up from the dungeons of Academia. @@MitchellPorter2025
Sarah Paine is what you get when you order Janice Stein on Wish.
Top shelf, and so interesting... she is captivating...
Somewhat agreed; big thing that made me tilt my head is when she was talking about "time-out" like it's just a detention to better guide them back to the civilization. Sometimes, but oh boi some nationals would find that as an insult. And I'm not entirely sure if EU would have embraced Russia even if Russia was willing to seriously reform (newsflash, they won't). Some countries would be more open for sure like Germany and some eastern European countries. Put it this way, this isn't the first time there were talks of Russia integrating into western Europe.
But big agreement is how terribly Russia mismanaged their resources to better the country. If they were genuine about the reforms and actually managed the resources and policies better similar to semi-successful western counterparts, Russia would be in far stronger position which would give them less reason to war against Ukraine (and even if Russia still went to war, they would have far greater success).
I'm kinda intrigued when she compared maritime vs land powers. I was hoping if she could've discussed the cons of maritime power too if applicable.
I don't agree that Trump would have sacrificed Ukraine. Reading someone's mind is fraught with leril
What’s “leril”? 😝 By the way genius, Orange Jabba says he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough”. It’s very clear what the Orange Jabba would have done. 🤡
Trump blocks any help to Ukraine right now, which shows that he is willing to sacrifice Ukraine. Judging by their action is a good way do read someones mind.
Just listen to his words - LMAO
Quite brilliant, Sarah Paine, and quintessentially American in the most positive way.
I want to see her debate with John Mearsheimer!
Sarah Paine is new to me. She's a great speaker and so intelligent. I could listen to her all day.
She lectures how China brought millions out of poverty but doesn’t say that the US put millions of its own citizens into poverty and proceeds to lecture China in economics
U r dum
Can't be an expert in everything. They bought her in to talk ask about potential adversaries. Her field. That she spent a lifetime studying.
Otherwise, yes. I do take your point. I too would think US has more to fear from internal issues.
Many Amercians also got much richer due to trade with China and unemployemnt is overall low. I think the main issue is a change in the distribution of wealth and income. Traditional jobs do no longer pay out as much as in the past. This could be fixed but with good sytem for redistribution but this is against the core values of the US adn even those who would benefit reject the idea.
@@user-cx4px3jh2f The US can make an adversary out of anyone that comfits the crime of sitting on resources that Wallstreet wants.
With all respect to this very impressive, learned woman, I cannot imagine Trump allowing Russia to invade Ukraine. She has no right to assert that he would have led us into WWIII. His record points in the opposite direction. Peace through strength!
you can’t imagine it because you’ve overdosed on the orange Jabba Kool-Aid.
Trump is blocking military help to Ukraine right now. What more proof about what he would have done do you need?
TDS is the realm of emotional outbursts and it affects people of every stripe. You can’t convince these people because they’re dead enders of their own design and would rather see the entirety of the US fail before they’ll open their minds
haha, i knew all these MAGA heads getting all excited about her would hop all over the comments here. world's a complicated place, huh.
@jon8004 there are only 2 genders. It's not that complicated buttercup.
Lucid and well-evidenced. Spot on.
What an impressive person! This is the best way to learn history.
Those walls are breached by our own country. Our country does not follow a lot of the Rules Based Order laws that we demand other nations to follow. Nations that are at a disadvantage. This is akin to Jeff Bezos reaching the wealth he has reached, and then afterwards intervening into government to place laws that make others unable to grow in the ways he did.
We do this with free trade, advising other nations to do so for their 'benefit' based on Neoliberalism, when our own nation did not get to where it is by those same rules.
This is the reason why the Global South is slowly separating itself from the US. In the 90s, those nations had trust in the US and truly believed in following the US and World Banks' advice in order to get to where first countries are. Now they're recognizing it has all been a lie, especially the seizure of Russian assets.
She's insanely knowledgeable, and I've learned from her listening to her interview here (Everyone has their own bias so it's important to recognize that diving into these). But listen to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. Staunch opposer of US Foreign Policy and someone who served high up in the ranks dating back from Reagan to the Bush administration. He is honest in his critique of the US, something I can't and don't expect from Sarah as she is currently teaching at the Naval War College.
I would love for her to either speak to Lawrence Wilkerson or Andrei Martyonov. We need more discussions with opposing equals to really see where they agree and disagree.
That's crap. I don't know where you're from but you don't know enough about the history. Not an insult.
Like trust in the US? You've got it backwards. There was no trust and they've had to build it and maintain it.
But that doesn't mean not trusting the order. Look at Mexico.
I doubt any country sees seizure of Russian assets as some lie of the order system. Russia broke the rules.
There's fundamentally something wrong with what it seems is you bringing up some old aspect of a country to where it's at in modern times.
Really interesting. I look forward to listening to the whole interview.
Great interview Dwarkesh! How about a next interview with someone specialized in articulation? So difficult to understand what you are saying. Love your work nonetheless.
The professor from my old Alma mater has an exceptionally US centric view on international affairs. On one note; US weakness in foreign policy, European dependency on Russian gas, the steep rise in oil price helped Putin make the decision to invade Ukraine.
I don’t think she gives Trump enough credit. As Victor Davis Hanson has said, Trump is more Jacksonian than isolationist.
She's giving the establishment defense view. Like when Trump's defense secretary said he lied all the time about the number of US troops in Syria. Orange man bad. These people want to do what they want.
“Trump enough credit” 🤣😝😂 It’s known that while in office Orange Jabba never read his daily intel reports. Orange Jabba is a blatant isolationist, he said it repeatedly 🙄
@@nosheizer1294 Maybe there's an inverse correlation because things were very calm during Trump's time.
@@raul0ca Orange Jabba praised dictators and sent them love letters, maybe that’s why 🤣😂😝🤡
@@nosheizer1294 You're right. Things are much better now
Everything she's saying applies here in the US as well. Imagine if The President, whoever it is, applies all that money $$$ to infrastructure INSTEAD of weapons? Imagine that?
FFS it's the SAME thing here lady. If Trump, or Biden or Obama, or Bush HAD SPENT THAT MILITARY UPGRADE MONEY $$$$$$ on roads, and education, and housing, IMAGINE!!!
I mean, it can be applied here but comparing the US to Russia in these terms, its pretty obvious who has been doing the better job. Its the US by leaps snd bounds. Doesnt mean there arent problems, but Russia is just a mess
Love her take on how we keep the peace, and why Russia doesn’t really work. Notable, is that America saw Communism as the world threat it was and is, and determined that Japan, near China, and Germany, near Russia, had to re-enter the world as democratic partners or it wouldn’t work. The Marshall Plan is a remarkable story of using America’s financial strength to influence a struggling Europe after WW II, in order to keep it out of Stalin’s clutches. The story of getting France and England to accept Germany as a partner is worth the read. I have also wondered why the oligarchs and Putin don’t see entering the Western world of treaties and financial gain as something that would benefit them. Yes, you might lose some power and total control, of course, but the benefits would be broad and significant over the long run. I guess cooperation with other nations means giving up absolute control over life and death, and he’s just not willing to do that.
Fully agree!!
Well she should really look up the definition of hegemony, because she described it almost perfectly as Wallerstein does xD Hegemony is not the same as Empire. A Hegemony means that the important states stay independent but there is one state which is the leading economic power. Empire means everybody loses their independence and becomes a vassal to the dominant power. And well, all the states of the center revolve arround Wall Street, because they need that to be the case in order for trade to run smoothly. China wants their own hegemony, Russia wants an Empire with every nation being included into russia (allthough their policy in Africa seems a little more soft for now. I think the biggest problem was letting russia drown in the 90s without giving them a marshall plan. They did the same thing they did to Austria and Germany after world war one and they are surprised that there is a new Hitler in the east?
China is an expansionist imperial power that wants to grow its empire.
Yes it's US fault and they're doubling down now with "break up Russia" talk.
The important difference between Putin and Hitler is Putin doesn’t have a grand plan that revolves around the extermination of everyone who isn’t ethnic Russian!
Thank you. Paine here seems to have a massive blind spot regarding the end of the USSR and the chaos that followed- pretending like "everyone wanted Russia to be like Europe and just do business".
The former Soviet Republics were all preyed upon by US-government-employed economic advisors, whose advice led to state firms being sold for pennies, hyperinflation, and a complete collapse of investment (even compared to Soviet standards).
The US communicated very clearly to Russia what it does to countries that it deems too weak to be worthy of respect.
Russia simply took that lesson and ran with it. Hence Georgia and Ukraine.
Become strong in a conventional sense first, then work on business.
You can't foster investments if foreign powers are constantly pushing your leaders to make poor decisions, on account of there being no military consequences (deterrent) for meddling in their domestic affairs.
In fact the whole "maritime vs continental" idea is short-sighted: she is correct about which types of countries are on either side of that framework, but she doesn't realize the dynamic that fuels it.
Those that have geographic security, and those who don't.
All of the maritime powers are states which have geographically stable and protective borders. Australia, New Zealand, Britain- islands.
Canada and US: virtually islands, surrounded by sparse lands or oceans.
Western Europe: protected by distance and the Northern Plains. Europe was itself continental until coming under the US umbrella.
All of these areas are insulated, instilling a natural sense of security. China and Russia are large and much less protected. China was for much of its history until its Pacific coast became a vector for states to use.
@@LancesArmorStriking I mostly agree. However there is something of a self fulfilling prophecy called "neo-realism" at play in Russian and somewhat in Chinese geopolitics. Of course those countries were suppressed by the currend hegemony. They could have very well be included without a big problem. I don't buy her story of "Putin could have entered, but chose not to". He actually wanted to be a part of the hegemony at first, but nobody in the west would let Russia be a central part as that would have demised US and German Power. However at the same time Nato was not planning on invading russia and didn't pose that much of a threat. But when Russia interpreted it as a beginning war, all they could plan for and enact was a war strategy, thereby making the war a reality. Don't get me wrong: Natos expansion in eastern Europe was never a part of the deal promised to Russia and the EUs expansion certainly also posed an economic threat to Russia, but this was only excelerated the more Russia became aggressive. So in short there was vicious cicle of misstrust and punishment going on on both sides, leading to the current situation. This however is no justification for starting a war. I still hope for a democratic Russia with free elections and at least proportional representation to keep the peace, but it wont be possible under Putin and it wont be possible if we in the West don't only rebuild Ucraine, but also Russia
"Anyone can join the maritime world order, it's win win." Why would the US allow countries as powerful as Russia or China to fully join, have a say in a system they built and control, and challenge the US power over it? Why would European countries want countries much bigger and powerful than they are join said system, and relegating them to irrelevance? Answer: the US and Europeans wouldn't.
She's ignorant and talk nonsense.
Russia is not powerful and China was part of it up until the CCP decided to centralize in a socialist system again and is thus now on their way out for very good reasons. China btw did only become powerful because they joined the maritime order.
@@timmteller871 It's very clear you have no idea what makes a country powerful, buddy. Maritime order just mean trading via sea routes that existed long before the existence of the US or even Britain. Get over yourself, trade via land routes, for example the silk road is a perfectly suitable alternative. What makes a country rich is the production of goods and services. The Chinese are just better at that compared to anyone on Earth.
@@markarmage3776 The Chinese got rich because their switch to economically freemarket oriented institutionalism allowing them to use the potential of their vast resource of cheap labour to produce for western markets/demand. And that trade happened and happens almost exclusivly via sea. The silk road was made immediatly obsolete once trade routes via ship were established and the reasons are identical to why it is inferior today too. A. The costs of shipping are higher due to purely technical reasons. Sea/river need much much less capital to construct and maintain necessary infrastructure and marginal efficiency of ships is much higher then that of trucks/trains (ships can carry alot which is why we have cost degression). B. Lack of internal integration. The silk road routes have to navigate through many instable countries or regions that are not politically aligned or even either enemies of China or each other and thus inherently pose immense security risks which makes transport always risky. Sea routes do only have this problem in limited scale and can be much easier protected with a capable navy. Hence why the maritime based empires always won in history in comparison to the land based empires. Btw the silk road initiative is basically dead right now due to many many reasons alot of which are political. Internal connections via land routs only really work as efficiently in spaces that are politically integrated like the European Union for example.
1. China's explosive economic and political growth was entirely due to their taking part in the Maritime order. China is an export economy, if they don't trade goods, their economy wouldn't have grown and their influence would have eventually diminished. The problem facing China now is their own handling of covid and their instance of remaining within the protection of the Maritime world order but not having those rule of the maritime order apply to them.
2. Russia was also taking part of the "Maritime World Order". How the heck do you think the Russian Oligarchs got so wealthy? Remember the gas pipelines to Europe? The hope was that Russia would get so wealthy from trade that they would willing join the Maritime World Order.
Imagine where the US would be, if they had spent their money on the Americans, instead of their imperialistic bs
influence => trade => wealth
without it america would be way poorer today
If you can't even watch the video, don't comment.
@@Normally_aspirated I'll decide that myself
Money isn't everything, just look at Western Europe. In 50 years native Europeans will be like the native Americans here, in small reservations at best..
Sarah Paine listen to her she gets it.
Pretty sure Putin did want to join NATO...
thank you he did and America said no!
NATO was invented to protect against invasion. Putin has no problem invading countries.
Putin wanting to join NATO is like the Mafia wanting to join the Police force. They don't understand that it is their behavior is what keeps them out.
They just don't get it.
@@brentblanks1067 ya that was a scam read up on it. he wanted to dismantle nato from the inside. Bribes and underhand deals were going to be the norm. Putins goal from the beginning is exactly what she says. continental empire building.
He wanted support for attack on other countries....
@ryanmac7377
It was a long period from 1988 till around 2006 or 18 years where Russia was actually pro western! Russia try to join the European Union and got told no, Russia. Russia was told NATO would not expand up to their border and that turned out to be a lie, Russia tried to join NATO and got told no. Russia tried to become a part of the west, and we refused. Not only do we insist on isolating, Russia, and then infringing upon their space. We also impoverished them by installing by reading their elections to install Boris Yeltsin and his cronies to extract wealth and resources out of Russia for us for pennies on the dollar. Trying things the western way with Western help saw Russia go through 11 consecutive years of GDP and HDI decline. We didn’t stop there I have intelligence agencies funded and propped up separatist and terrorist movements inside Russia, killing tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Russians, in a series of civil wars and terror incidents. We did this to people we said we were no longer hostile to Navid wanted to be friends with, while we refused without them any benefits of our friendship and kept attacking them!
This woman could be Secretary of State