Hey Vlad, hope you are doing fine. You know, i think you have been a bit too harsh on Peter Zeihan. Let me give you an example. If you ask men why they like wide hips in young women, i bet almost no one would say because human babies have very big heads. Yet that is exactly the ground truth reason. We men have to very much like women that way, because other women wouldn't be able to bear our children. So we men evolved to like women that way. So when Peter talks about the almost no existing infrastructure and very low population density of the wast spaces of Russia, he is talking about the ground truth reason, why Russia has to be perpetually on the attack. And of course Russians can be puzzled by that. As you described in your video about Nikolai Gogol and his novel Dead Souls. And also the fact that even for Russians Russia has no well defined borders. Men also don't think about big baby heads when they react to a young women with a nice figure. So Peter is of course in the same way wrong in saying Putin attacked Ukraine because he needed to plug those access routes for attack. Putin wasn’t thinking of that. But with the ground truth explanation he is spot on.
Most social scientists think that the demographic Peter is referring to is a reason NOT to start a war. That’s just an observation. Beyond, to establish his claim, Peter would need his idea of the cause of war to be present in the minds of the people who started the war. The issue here is that I can’t think of a single country expert who can be persuaded that that’s true. Peter’s best move is not to fight this, but to show how his unsupported view somehow serves his project in ways that make sense.
Thanks for your reply! ;) You made a fair point. If somebody would have liked to prevent this war Peters explanation of the supposed causes wouldn't help very much, one would need to engage with the thoughts of the actors. On the other hand, i maintain that Peter put his finger on one of the root causes of russian militarism. It had to be this way, otherwise we wouldn't have had the russian empire. They inherited that from the Mongols and the Golden Hord, who had to solve the same problem.
@@isolvedagi305 if it’s a root cause, it has to run through the psychology of the main actors - to some extent. It can’t just be an abstract functional claim.
@Jon Little Mate sorry to shoot you down a bit here ;) First some nitpicking. Vlad clearly stayed in his lane by merely observing what social scientists say ;) So disagree with them. But more to the point, what you describe is some version of the invasion story, which usually draws a violent response. The younger the populations involved the more violent it gets. Exactly the situation at the and of the 19th and beginning of 20th century. Which brings me to my second point. Vlad said "the demographic Peter is referring to", meaning an aging and declining population. The invasion part is not really there (before 2022, who was coming to Russia in large numbers) and more over i would guess what those social scientists observe is that younger populations (young males) are more aggressive, certainly to instigate revolutions but apparently also wars. With an aging and declining population one usually does not go to war for lack of apatite. Ether way Putin doesn't care. They are aware of the trend, thats why they steal children. Although there certainly also is a genocidal motivation behind it. But thats more a opportunity they take advantage of, because its just bad math to lose more than 100000 dead to kidnap maybe 20000 children. So Putin doesn't care. Which makes Peter wrong and the observation of the social scientists not applicable.
@Jon Little Peter Zeihan's stick on Ukraine is: to the north and the south of the Carpathian Mountains , on the other side of Ukraine, are access ways to the great Eurasian plane for potential invaders. So the war always had to happen. Russians are aware of their aging population, so it had to happen by now, otherwise they wouldn’t have enough soldiers. Sounds awfully lot like, we are getting old so lets do it now. There certainly are examples of governments going to war for domestic reasons. For instance Putin in Ukraine. There are even more examples where that’s not the case. It seams to be more a result of the functioning of the political processes in the country in question paired with significant militarism. As you might have noticed, your line of arguing entangles population decline with nativist rhetoric. But that makes it harder to straight argue: population decline -> war. In your answer to my response you focused more on economic problems, as a result of demographic decline, as triggers for possibly going to war. Fair enough. Since demographic problems are fairly recent. Lets say 30 or 40 years. Find me a war in this period where you can show your case. If present day China goes to war, i would grand you that example. I will not add anything else. Everybody can read the whole exchange and think for themselves.
I have read 3 of Peter Zeihan's books this last year. He speaks in absolutes because he is paid to give advice to governments and corporations. He knows he might be wrong and has been wrong about his past predictions, but he is not going to stop speaking in absolutes about his predictions on the future because that is his job. I like listening to his ideas. I think about 50% are brilliant, and 50% probably aren't going to happen. He's an interesting free resource on UA-cam that I follow. What I like about him is he has developed a lot of haters for his predictions and he couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or says about him. He isn't going to change his mind unless it is data driven.
Hi Jake, you and Vlad are my most favourite Channels on this tragedy in Ukraine. I have also seen you mentioning Zeihan in your own video some month ago and I wanted to reply back hen but had to go back to work and then I eventually forgot it. I agree that Zeihan, over his professional career, has developed a very interesting and practical geopolitical model, which served him well at plenty of occasions. As mentioned also in this video, he predicted the War in Ukraine 5 years ago, which definitely deserves merit. However I think that, appart from haters which should be ignored, plenty of criticism is justified and he should not be seen as a reliable source, but rather as someone who developed a cunning geopolitical model and sells it for a living. Before you say I am just another hater, here is a clip where he explains why he never cites any sources in his books: ua-cam.com/video/Ai6OOQrt7_o/v-deo.html (starts at 1:48). ,,the hole of human history is my input and if I were to cite everything that had some contribution to what I thought the citations would be a lot more than 480 pages". That statement should objectively ring some alarmbells and shows Zeihan cannot be trusted untill one checks the facts oneself. Other statements, for example that some country will sooner or later invade russia if they dont expand to their old sowiet size (which has also been shown in this video) is so absurd that it can't be defended as hyperbolic or with the benefit of the doubt.
As I recall, last spring, Zeihan thought Ukraine was going to be flattened immediately. His viewpoint has changed significantly, and I think he is probably close to explaining the root cause of the war now, and what we are seeing in the method of support from the US government.
That's because his statements are aimed at the American general audience. You can't make ambiguous statements and still be able to sell your books. Peters actual works like his writing has more nuance and ambiguity to them which is why I give him a pass for his hyperbolic and often outrageous statements which he surely merely makes to increase engagement with his work.
@@joey199412 Not sure which books you have read, but especially his last book is very much like the content on his youtube channel and not very nuanced.
@@VladVexlerChat Wish you'd do it for his Tulsi Gabbard episode: she very sincerely opposes the war effort in Ukraine (I think she's consumed by fear of nuclear war). Would be heartwarming if you could speak cordially with her, helping adjust her views, as many of us respect her "aloha" true intentions.
@@zetristan4525 I share your views. If we let us be bullied by threats of nuclear retaliation, we might as well leave the world to tyrrants like Putin, Kim and Xi. And that’s obviously not going to happen. We need to counter the blackmail from Putin and his terrorist threats by maintaining a firm, steady pressure and an united front against his cunning manouvering. The whole point is to have a realistic understanding of the best/worse case outcome and keeping an unofficial diplomatic channels open, and simulataniously being willing - and make this stance very public - our willingness to use military power in order to defend us.
Thank you. I've followed Peter Zeihan for a couple of years now and have grown increasingly skeptical of a number of his views as of late. (Largely because he has made some factually inaccurate statements about finance and technology of which I have some knowledge.) I normally wouldn't care, but Zeihan's star has been rising lately and more people are starting to listen to him. He has a well oiled performance that he gives in front of general audiences and rarely speaks in front of experts. He also speaks with absolute conviction about everything he talks about. However, I've grown concerned that I don't ever see him speaking to groups who are actually real experts in any of the fields he discusses. This means he rarely engages with people whom have deeper subject matter knowledge than himself and thus is rarely challenged on any of his ideas by people with the intellectual capacity to do so. I'm glad that he is finally gaining the attention of real subject matter experts and academics who are starting to challenge some of his ideas.
@@astronomenov99 Bitcoin yes. EVs no. Zeihan likes to make snarky commentary about many things he has not sufficiently researched. It is unprofessional and it really just makes him look dumb to people who actually have a more specialized knowledge than he has on a given topic. As I like to say, Peter Zeihan is the P. T. Barnum of geopolitical consulting. Entertaining and contrarian, but should be listened to with a high degree of skepticism.
As a big fan of Zeihan, I've been dying to see a smart person challenge him, so thank you for this! The thing that has always kept me iffy on Zeihan is he doesn't really traffic in academic spaces (he'll often go on investor podcasts or business conferences), so he rarely gets push back from serious commenters. Again, I largely agree with a whole lot of patterns he points out (demographic crises, geographic challenges, reorganization of globalism, etc), but he doesn't seem to see the difference between analysis and predictions. In the podcast, he talks about the looming disaster in China; he's spot on with the numbers and disastrous domestic Chinese policy, but there is no human alive who can predict where China - let alone the entire world - will look like in 10 years. We can make patterns, point out emerging challenges, and even offer solutions, but nothing is ever set in stone.
Thing is, no one can see the future. We all get things wrong. It's part of being human. Therefore I don't automatically believe anyone's claims at face value. That said, I attribute more credibility to some than others. This channel rates highly in my opinion. I also like Zeihan.
He's basically a generalist, an intellectual jack of all trades. That's what came out in this video, he knows more than the man in the street but less than an actual Russian expert. So put him next to an actual Russia expert and he'll be crushed, but what probably happens behind closed doors is he asks that Russian expert a lot of good questions and is a good listener - and those conversations are half his job. But compared to that Russian expert he knows more about China and Brazil, global supply networks and demographic trends. What he says about anyone topic has to be taken with a massive grain of salt, he's full of hyperbole, simplifications and focusing on the trends that interest him, it's the big picture stuff that's his bread and butter.
I have read all four of PZ's books and listened to a lot of his online content; yes hyperbole is part of his presentation style and I have long learned to decode it as a form of dark humour. He is very much a generalist. not a Russia expert. His analytic approach is not going to be the same as someone deeply immersed in the details of Kreminology or Russian culture. He adds another dimension to the picture that does not necessarily contradict your own.
Agree. I'm ashamed to admit it but the hyperbole really helps me understand and remember. I just decode it later on by turning the dial from 11 to 8. :)
He’s the daredevil of geopolitical punditry and I can respect that. The problem (if it is a problem) is that a segment of his audience only listens to the parts that they want to hear and that confirm their biases. You know, the uneducated, opinionated, imbeciles. A secondary criticism is that he dances around certain issues. This is obscured by his willingness to go out on a limb on other issues. My worry with Pete’s appearance on Rogan is that Rogan and his audience are the uneducated, opinionated imbeciles. They’re the ones who will latch on to Pete’s hyperbole and amplify it. For example, they’ll use Pete’s predictions about the retreat of globalism as an argument for isolationism.
@@MarcosElMalo2 you are incorrect, sir. Joe Rogan’s audience is not a bunch of imbeciles… It’s exactly the opposite. He has the most popular podcast in the world-to generalize in such a way is really immature and irresponsible.
I remember when Peter Zeihan said that the closest country Germany can get gas from besides Russia is Nigeria. So no his not very clever, he knows how to sound clever by sounding surtian. NORWAY is of course the closest country Germany can get massive amount of natural gas from and they are now the biggest supplier to Germany. And Norway said they can supply more if they get more long contract. Now if he didn't now that quite common info then what else does he lack?
I have been waiting for this for a while..... I have subscribed to both you and Zeihan's on UA-cam since the start of this conflict and I enjoy both perspectives. And I have been waiting for someone to take on Zeihan's overarching arguments. You are nuanced and insightful. Peter's pronouncements are always sweeping and generally more entertaining. Well done.
Yes - Vlad and Peter both bring very different styles of thinking to the discussion. One is a political philosopher, the other a geopolitical analyst and I would not expect them to agree while still finding both well worth listening to. Peter's core idea is that the long term fate of nations is determined by geography, demography, climate and security - which is a very different starting point from a political approach which rests on personality.
@@philipwilkie3239 I think demographics played a big part into Russia's invasion, even subconsciously. The plan was to quickly annex Ukraine and use their human capital to revitalize the dying Russian Empire's demographics. Except what happened was the war was extended and their plan backfired creating a brain drain and capital flight that compounded the very problem they were trying to mitigate.
@user-ii7oh7hk6x Maybe subconsciously or at the level of Zeitgeist, but it seems to me that based on the evidence available, Russian leaders are motivated by short to medium term profit above all else, regardless of how much they might reference a shabby version of history. Russia's leaders are well aware of demographic decline, but it's hard to believe that they planned to solve this by incorporating a country with many of the same issues.
his books are great too - if you like Zeihan's content I would suggest, if you haven't seen it already - his presentation for the army at fort benning, and his presentation for the navy at the navy post graduate school
With your measured analytics and judgement and your knowledge you're one of the people who are an immense benefit for democrats and supporters of Ukraine worldwide. Especially since the cause can be lost in a crazy information space and false expertise on both sides of the conflict. As a student of political science who lived in Russia and harbours friendship for all the peoples of the post Soviet space I appreciate your work a lot.
I have also studied and lived in Russia and had many russian friends, very generous and caring people who was always willing to help out and support and do their level best. Consequently, I have a high regard for russian people … individually. But it seems to me that something unexplicable affects russians as a group and in my experience, all russians I have encountered regards ukrainians as less developed and take an arrogant view of Ukraine, in a way that is not questioned. But what is worse, is that no russian I have met (so far) have expressed a sense of moral responsibility for the horrible crimes committed by the rulers in Kremlin upon Ukraine and it’s people. Like the Kholodomor, to name one tragic incident. There have been many more. I have observed a clear externalisation of guilt, ‘it was done by Stalin’ or ‘that was NKVD’. Noone seems to take responsibilty for the crimes and misdeeds caused by Russia as a whole. This is quite different from for example how modern germans react to the crimes of the Nazi regime and how ordinary germans contributed to the many terrible things the Nazi Germany subjected others too. Then again, after the WW2 there was a real de-nazification and a lot of deep soul searching in Germany. As far as I know, there is no parralell to this in Russia.
@@Mr.Monta77This has resonance for me. If you watch interviews with russian POWs on Zolkin's channels, when they are asked - why did you come to Ukraine to kill? they ALWAYS say that it was an order, or they don't know why, or they aren't interested in politics, or some other banal statement. In other words, they totally refuse to take responsibility for their actions in Ukraine. Totally. It's disgusting.
@@cl4re4d4ms About Russin POV. Most behavour is learned behaviour. It’s the same with racism or other prejudice. What I don’t get is how easily how many russians (of course, speaking very generally) let themselves be led by Kremlin propaganda. After all the rubbish they got their ears pumped full of during the USSR years, why are they not better inoculated against the current propaganda? At least today, most russian have access to alternative news sources and can use a VPN. I suspect the imperial arrogance is deeply rooted in white, urban russian culture. They can be very racist and arrogant towards other ethnic minorities in the Federation, like Dagestan, Kirgisistan, Uzbek or many others: these people certainly does not reach the same level of cultural ‘quality’ as ‘old russians’. I have many times observed this myself. And not the least, the action and ‘philosophy’ of the many extreme right wing russian nationalist (many, highly aggressive and dangerous) are a danger to minorities and many murders have been committed by such. It is therefore ironic that russians want to de-nazify Ukraine. There are many nationalists in Ukraine, a direct result - I believe - of the centuries of russian oppression of their country. But I strongly suspect they are a much smaller number than russian nationalists.
@@Mr.Monta77 I see people saying this a lot, but I don't believe that it can possibly be true: "At least today, most russian have access to alternative news sources and can use a VPN. I suspect the imperial arrogance is deeply rooted in white, urban russian culture." Consider, first of all, that their median income is around 400$ per month. That is the figure from before the current economic sanctions. I imagine it will be a lot worse now. Tech such as computers is slightly cheaper there, but not by much. With that median income and those economic realities, how can you conclude that the majority of Russians have access to a personal computer, a vpn and the internet? Speaking of the internet, I live in Canada, and we are not technological slouches. Nonetheless, due to our vastness and fairly low population density (which makes us a little bit comparable to Russia), rural internet coverage is very spotty and even non-existent in many locations in Canada. I am not sure if it even exists in the rural north, and if it does, it will be purely government funded. Does Russia have such a mandate to provide media connectivity to all of its citizens? I don't know, but I somehow doubt it. They have well-known issues with basic infrastructure, sanitation and transportation, so I am sure that broadband or even cellular network availability is somewhat further down the list of priorities for citizen care. When I read people saying that, I think that they must be assuming that Russians have the same economic freedom, lifestyle and access to information as we have, here in the west. That's an assumption that simply should not pass after we take even a cursory glance at the numbers that reflect the lived reality of the Russian people. It's likely that young, intelligent, gainfully employed and well-educated people in the large city centers will have access to these things, but they represent a very small minority of the Russian population, taken as a whole. For the rest, given that they are poor, less educated, more remote and skewing a lot older, you cannot make that assumption. Even if you don't look at income vs prices, just consider how much ease the older generations in the west have with technology. They're famously averse to it and also famously credulous if they do manage to figure out something like facebook. Russia's computing tech was dwarved by the west, too. There was a little moment where they could have come out ahead because they started well, but the Party did not understand the importance of computers and all but abandoned them. They only encountered the informational age after their economy started to recover after the collapse, meaning in the 00's. That's very, very recent. So additionally, these people are not native to the information age. They have only just arrived in it. Therefore, how on earth can someone conclude that their grannies and rural people are more proficient at it than the ones in G7 countries? No, it doesn't make sense to assume that the majority of Russians have access to countervailing narratives or analyses at all.
@@Mr.Monta77 Just seen a tube about the Buriat. There is 190 differrent nationality in Russia. Erasing every national sentiment (other than the one for Russia) is a way to kept their empire together...
As a person who values both Peter and Vlad, I think it would be interesting if the two had a chat. Much more than Vlad's analysis of Peter's chat with that the Joe dude.
"with that the Joe dude." Oh, that irrelevant, unknown, silly minded guy that has the biggest podcast on the planet known by countless millions of people? Mate, I tried to be charitable but that comes off as a pretty, "I'm above it all" attempted throwaway. If I'm wrong, and I don't think I am, it's going to be a hard sell. Cheers.
@@Ididntaskforahandleyoutubei am not your mate, buddy. Anyhow you're missing the point. The type of Analysis Vlad did is a waste of time on Peter's discus with Joe. Because of Joe and because of his audience. Also, who cares if Joe is known by a lot of people. So is Kim Kardashian.
Peter can sometimes offer some interesting viewpoints from the prism of demographics, particularly if you're not really used to thinking about things through that lens, however personally this is where I found his videos usefulness to end for me; they are sensationalistic in nature, making grand predictions, sometimes based off of a single factor or assumption, and ignoring the fact that global geopolitics is a very complex system where it's never about 2+2 equals 4, but more about a whole lot of small decimal factors coming together to equal something, and as such making definitive predictions of events is very difficult, if not impossible. If Zeihan was to be believed, Ukraine would have lost this war several times over by now, China as a state would have collapsed months ago, same goes for Germany and the EU at large. Another commenter used a very apt term here - intellectual fast food. You're better off trying to find your own sources and getting to your own conclusions.
The guy is a typical narcissist. When you encounter overly confident, smooth talking and charming people, always be on alert and look beneath the facade. He's selling himself, his lectures and books.
There was a coup 1991. Gorbachev was detained at hi s vacation spot for three days. The demonstrations for him were successful, but Yeltsin then took over. From my perspective, Gorbachev wanted to prevent civil war-like conditions. Peter Zeihan has only the perspectives from the US. A little bit to much glory for the US. But on his demographic terms and his geographics terms he is right. His mistake lies in ignoring social components or in simplifying many other factors that also play a role. Where he is right, Russia isn't a democracy and Putin is a dictator.
Hyperbolic statements are a trademark of Peter Zeihan the problem is some people don't get that he is being overly dramatic for a reason. He is good at marketing, I watched him on a forum in India and he played the Indians like a fiddle, he knows the general pulic mindset of his audience and uses it to his benefit.
Mr. Vexler, your ability to create context while at the same time avoiding thoughts and words that could create conflict and then offering reassurance is refreshing beyond belief. Thank you for all you do. Salva Ukrani Heroyam Slava.
It is interesting to listen to Peter Zeihan address areas where you know something about the topic. As a Canadian I have heard his pontificating about the future of Canada. It was for the most part a caricature, and as such was recognizable but probably not useful as a tool of policy planning.
That was of great value Vlad, thank you. Peter Zeihan seems to buy into Tolstoy's theory of grand historical movements, rather than history being influenced by the intervention of key leaders. As you point out Vlad, Zeihan has his theory based on his future demographic prophecies; but he is not providing evidence that this is how Russian leaders actually think. It is noticeable than Zeihan keeps referring to "the Russians" rather than Putin. Tolstoy's theory that Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 was actually some mass movement of Western Europeans into Russia for some bizarre mystic reason, wasn't credible when he wrote it (although it was a fun commentary section of War and Peace) and it is even less so now. There are quite a few American pundits of this nature, who try to apply grandiose geopolitical theories to nations without doing the proper research to understand the idiosyncrasies of the nations and their leaders. Humans are not quite the communal robots that these theoreticians believe them to be!
It is not that Peter doesn't provide explanation of how Russian leaders think, Peter doesn't take into account how they think--he is providing just the constrains of the problem, which has the advantage that are less uncertain and disadvantage of being less subtle. It is interesting to notice that his point of view is completely complementary to Vlad's.
It's over 4 decades since I read War and Peace. So this is risky. But my hazy memory of my impressions of those pages where Tolstoy breaks off from the narrative to dis the significance of the individual figure, Napolean -- *because he is* an individual figure, if I understood and recall correctly his claim, is as follows: Tolstoy intertwines this "Napolean doesn't really matter" stuff with a respect verging on hero worship for just how much rests on admirable attributes of the individual psyche of General Kutozov. My thoughts while reading (as recalled now): Tolstoy needs to make up his mind. Either high profile historical individuals can matter, or they cannot, or something in between. I can't accept that they all don't matter on one page; but then this one does actually matter a lot on some other page. Is my memory of the inconsistency accurate?
On the other side, how many "Russian Experts" declared that Russia would invade Ukraine last year? Even after the leaked communications from Putin by the American Intel services, so many talking heads kept mentioning that it was just posturing.
The thing about Zeihan (and his mentor George Friedman) is that they come from a position that assumes that no matter who is in charge of a particular state, they will act almost identically to each other based on the "geopolitical chess board" as you put it. Zeihan takes it further than Friedman and delves into demographics and statistics more than anyone I've seen. While informative in its own way, this approach does miss out on a lot as you point out. My other problem with him is that he always comes across as trying to say what he thinks people want to hear. The US will always come out on top, everyone else sucks. He really appears (to me at least) to be going in overdrive in marketing himself.
I don't think he is saying what he thinks people want to hear... because every time I listen to him, he says things I DON'T want to hear all the time... Also, for the past many months, all I've heard was that the US is doomed to fail nonstop... Peter is literally the only person that went against that narrative in my experience. It's weird. He is the biggest whiplash change I've heard from when it comes to the US lol
This is very valuable work. Thousands are following various media platforms and pundits while lacking guidance on analysis, critical thinking and fallacies, source balancing and credibility assessment. This kind of 'walkthrough' case study of current affairs videos is so beneficial in equipping users with these vital modern skills, to arm /armour ourselves in a dangerous and continuously contested information environment. Thank you and please do more of this for the benefit of the community. We appreciate your efforts immensely and linking you allows us to help others as well.
I agree this has teal value. Pointing out where generalizations, assumptions or theories ignoring facts come in to a speakers narrative. I have not listened to the speaker Peter. But I have heard one of his theories I believe in western news analysis, that war is driven by the necessary proportion of young people in an increasingly aging population. Such simple but logical sounding theories obscure the actual political and cultural situation.
It is exceedingly refreshing to find someone who is both critical in their analysis of statements and willing to be charitable in their interpretations.
As someone who loves Peter Zeihan's content but can see that he's far too sure of himself about specifics given how much of a generalist he is, it's great to see him taken to task by a specialist in their area. This very much earned a sub to your main channel. :)
Far too sure of himself - pretty much sums it up. Early on in the war he said "oh Russia will absolutely win this, no question" even then one could see Russia wasn't going to win given the incompetence, crappy equipment, the 40mile long traffic jam where fuel and other supply trucks were being targeted. Essentially one system that was a strict top down military based on loyalty vs one in which Zelensky concentrated on rallying the country and getting the international support while leaving the actual military decisions to his army officers. Zeihan is knowledgeable and has a team but sometimes just rambling things like "Treaty of Westphalia in 1066"? makes one pause.
@@peterkratoska4524 Russia hasn't lost yet. I'm a fervent supporter of Ukraine but I'm still worried. The Russian meat grinder is being refilled at a high rate.
@@astronomenov99 Agreed they haven't lost yet. The meatgrinder is being re-filled at a high rate but also an unsustainable rate. And this is currently for a couple of towns that arent even strategically valuable. a good Russian point of view on this is Max Katz (a former municipal politician in exile now) his team has daily video essays and examines a lot of the factors. Recently he pointed out the numbers of willing prisoners that can be recruited by Wagner is a limited number (Russia has 400,000 in prisons and some 20% have family support but a lot are cannon fodder no one cares about) Its also not likely that Russia can repeat the surprise attack they did a year ago. They had the element of surprise, they had the massive advantage in men and equipment and yet were not able to get to and have enough to surround Kiev. There's massive amount of equipment lost not to mention artillery shells (The US can produce 15000 per month, the Russians are using 20,000 per day. They are buying from North Korea and drones from Iran. You don't even hear about Iskanders as they're all used up. A lot really depends on one person - as it is Putin's project and he can't back down but all it takes is one helicopter to crash (one of his crashed just a week ago, he wasn't on it) If Ukraine happens to cut off and take Crimea, the Russians will remove him on their own. I mean there have to be some 5000 oligarchs and cronies who have lost a lot in the last year.
@@peterkratoska4524 I wouldnt say far too sure of himself, he was taking the position most people were taking, and so he just agreed with the consensus, considering russia sweeping in 2014
I'm so pleased to see you address Peter's work/statements Vlad... he's someone I follow, and temperamentally at least, you and he are at opposite poles within my geopolitical media consumption. You, Vlad, relish nuance and intellectual caution, whereas Peter is all about the hard determinism of select factors (demographics at the top). It's quite seductive! He also clearly loves to perform. I'm incredibly grateful to benefit from your analysis of his views and his approach to the world, I would welcome more!
Peter is in the business of advising government agencies and private corps so I think it’s necessary for him to make predictions based on his analysis otherwise his business model would not be very profitable
"Select factors," indeed. Not accounting for or readily distinguishing between the quality of land, impact of climate, and the work ethic applied within those limits, purely on the agricultural-economics and transportation-infrastructure fronts, is an example of why Peter represents more "pub speak" than analysis that is useful for understanding what international public policy and aims should be. It is commonly said that "the Devil is in the details" and developing a reasonably nuanced understanding is important in any situation like this, especially one with troubles that have persisted for centuries despite a variety of approaches taken.
@@ReflectedMiles honestly when speaking to specific industries he does dive into the specifics. The company I work for had him on and he’s very insightful. However I don’t think that would make for an entertaining podcast aimed at the general population.
@@Cad-k7j My guess would be that he has specific exposure to, and/or experience with, those industries. Has he observed the differences in a farming village in Russia vs. one in the Czech Republic, as I and many others have, with enough discussion with the locals to understand some of the most rudimentary and important differences in how they function? Either he has not, or choosing entertainment as the priority for a podcast on such a serious topic raises other questions of judgment. I will say that the degree to which hyperbole and sensationalistic entertainment value has overtaken "conservative"-oriented media in the last couple of decades has done that segment no favors towards actually understanding others and situations in accurate, nuanced ways, so perhaps you're right on that.
Peter Z is a fine raconteur, however as an analyst I find his breathless doomcasting unconvincing. He is often addressing an audience in his videos but the speaking event is never named. Also, he's always on the road, "Peter Zeihan coming to you here from [insert US city]". My theory is that he speaks to investor clubs of mostly older guys who, like a lot of retail investors, are looking for a hot tip, the inside track, the REAL story, etc, etc. Peter's in-a-nut-shell super confidence appeals to that audience. He seems like a nice fellow personally but notice how you can switch his geopolitics subject matter with some Silicon Valley tech subject matter and he'd sound exactly the same, that West Coast salesmanship.
He's from the midwest and came to the spotlight in Texas at a think tank. I don't think there is anything West coast about him other than having the complex that comes with a similar cult of personality a la Musk (who it must be said, moved to where Zeihan lives).
@@LackofFaithify I know he's from Iowa. I just feel his style of delivery reminds me of West Coast and the need to always keep the brand visible as you alluded to.
@@yewtoob2007 Well put. I'd barely heard of him when I watched some Rogan clips a few days ago, and my impression was that he was a semi-knowledgeable grifter who talks tough to appeal to the bros who listen to Joe Rogan.
A lot of Zeehan's content is hijacked by unscrupulous UA-camrs who edit his talks often without context, attach the click-bait titles and add stock video footage. I question a lot of what he posits, but avoid anyone repackaging his talks.
My main issue with Zeihan is that he sounds way too definite and confident, I don't trust such people. He makes many statements without supplying evidence or qualification. He needs to be asked this question: "How do you know that to be true?". Thanks Vlad for the interesting and constructive commentary.
Unfortunately most people who sound overly confident are, but sometimes someone actually knows their sh1t and the two can be confused without clarification.
Nothing wrong about self confidence IMO. But. Zeihan really seems to have a tendency to short circuit / over simplify topics. Like extrapolating trends ad infinitum. I somehow missed his thoughts on disruption and systemic crisis (which are powerful tools to challenge the status quo) regarding several topics he addressed.
@@mitanni0 Yes, I suppose it is the over simplification, but then his audience is on UA-cam, so what can one expect? (exception being Vlad's audience who are fine with complexity it seems)
This reminds me of the WW2 saying, that plans were useless after contact with the enemy, but the planning process was invaluable. Basically planning is unreliable in multifactorial environments, but knowing the broad sweep of things is necessary to help shape even rapidly changing responses. You can draw an analogy to weather. Ignoring weather in military situations can be disastrous, but it is by no means solely determinative of military outcomes. Peter is like a prophet, he tells you what will happen, everything else being equal. Things are never equal, and the primary purpose of all prognostication is to avoid predictable difficulties.
As a geography teacher I have listened to Zeihan since 2015. And although his knoledge of general geography is very good and his knoledge about supply chains is considerable, the man has always had a tendency towards sensational predictions and statements. He will rationalize a prediction by stating historical "facts" and if the fact doesn't agree with his prediction he will change the fact, just like he did about Gorbatchev working for the KGB. He also has a tendency to preach for his crowds, since he travels all around the US giving lectures about all kind of economic/financial subjects. About two years ago he did a lecture in soy producing US state (i don't remember the state) and he said to the crowd, which was mostly made of soy farmers and investors, that they shouldn't worry about Brazillian competition since Brazil has awful soil, high dependency on international fertilizers and bad logistics, even claiming that Brazil's agricultural exports could be easily disrupted by some people blocking two or three of our highways. He also praises countries with great geographical features like Argentina and France, predicting that these countries have brighter futures ahead because of theirs great geography, almost ignoring all the human aspect about these nations. In the geography field we tend to call people like that as geographical determinists. So, I find him to be very knowledgeble, but in a generalistic superficial way. And he is always making sensational statements either to please the crowd or to get noticed. And also because if he makes a mistake, which he himself admits he will get his predictions wrong 9 out of 10 times, no one will remember or care. Most people only remember when you get something right, specially if its very sensational.
I don't think his knowledge of commodities and supply chain is particularly good. He knows just enough to confidently bullshit his audience. The one time I've heard him talk about a field I'm familiar with all he did was spout 15yo political factoids. Mostly wrong. Mostly irrelevant. And mostly 10 years out of date. He then used that to draw some mighty conclusion. Maybe he is well versed in everything except my topic. Or maybe he bullshits them all and trusts you don't know enough to challenge.
@@geyrek5955 you may have a point. I didn't want to sound too sure of myself, but he does give that impression some time. Like a more or less well informed sophist.
@@Mic-sg " Like a more or less well informed sophist." I tend to feel that he may be more nefarious than that. He doesn't speak in good faith; whatever his motives are, they aren't to inform the audience well. Here's a video I found debunking not only his interpretation of facts, but his facts themselves: ua-cam.com/video/660baZoWnoQ/v-deo.html
In 2014, he did say that Russia would attack Ukraine between 2021 and 2022. If anyone doubts, he has a video right here on UA-cam from 2014 with him saying exactly this, you guys can check it out. And he said that in a moment where everybody laughed.
Exactly, Peter looks at things in a very special and analytical way like few people can. He was much often right than wrong and if he was wrong than not far away from his assumptions.
He makes numerous grandiose statements, some are bound to be right. He also been predicting that China will imminently collapse for more than a decade now.
@@danieldpa8484 the only time I’ve heard him put a timeline to the collapse of China he predicted it to be around the year 2030 I believe, we’ll see what the future brings, their housing and demographics crises are not good
@@Adam5576 retrospectively everyone is a genius but to put in forward an analysis is always a display of skill if proven correct. We will find out how things unfold while reviewing and completing the data on all the different predictions.
@@VladVexlerChat Peter Pomerantsev had some good observations on the latest Silicon Curtain video. You could pick up couple of them and say a few words more.
Having worked for a long time in finance (being a mathematician), Peter's analysis reminds me very much of the kind of business analysis, you would get from a consulting agency when asked about how to deal with a corporate crisis: The answers aren't always wrong (Peter was right when he said, we should support Ukraine), but you will often find a certain ignorance about intrinsic facts regarding the company and the market it moves in, so the analysis is often incomplete. Better analysis does not necessarily lead to better policies (you can be right because of the wrong reasons, and you can be wrong, despite knowing better - we will always make mistakes), but I see a more philosophical problem here: People like Peter (and business analysts) are convinced that models are actually as true as reality itself, when in reality they are an abstraction, created to help us to understand and to deal with the terrible complexity of life. In that way they are extremely useful, but should never be conflated with reality itself. Just because the Maths checks out, it isn't necessarily true.
The one problem I have with this that where do the get the demographic models for 'end stage demographic collapse' which is essentially where Peter places several nations with warped demographic patterns, most notable Russia, China and Germany. I don't think we've ever had a situation where technologically advanced civilizations have had both declining birth and mortality rates for successive generations. There's also nothing for the leaders to work on except demographic forecasts but what they essentially would need is policy recommendations. "Man, you guys are so screwed, you're done, it's curtains" isn't going to carry the policy making very far.
@@Katoshi_Takagumi Country leaders are probably well advised to look at Japan. The country is already a couple of years ahead in the demographic shift, and they might learn about how to deal with a rapidly ageing population. Yet, in Western countries (Germany e.g.), problems are currently mitigated by migration, a way, Eastern countries are probably not willing to go.
@@mina_en_suiza Well, typically you welcome migration, if you welcome it at all, from countries that are not too dissimilar and can provide you with labor. Robots are another solution, but I don't think we are quite there yet in terms of mass scale applications.
Dear Vlad, I just want to thank you, for your "work" and the way you are showing these complex matters. You are truly wonderful human being and you are inspiring me in so many ways. I wish you a lot of health Vlad. From Poland with Love !😉 👍❤ ps. As for Peter, I have a weakness for his theories, and his argumentation can be convincing. However, I am always looking for other points of view. All the more thanks for this material and your time.
Peter is a good entertainer. I do not say this to slam him. If you are going to sell books and lectures, you have to hold the audience, and most audiences care less about details. Vlad explores the nuances of people, which is enlightening to me. I dont think their ideas compete. People are asking Vlad to "prophecy" the way Peter does. That is not what Vlad wants to do, in my opinion.
@@mina_en_suiza When I'm watching Vlad in some moments (like at 8:20-8:25 in this particular video) I can see this kind of joy that you can see on a man's face when he knows what he is doing in professional mean, but at the same time can be as natural and joyful as one can only be. Like my parents who are pharmacists. Both great at chemistry and making real medicines to heal people. They love this, both can already retired, but don't want to. So in some way it is more their passion then work.
@@TheSmokinBuddah Very true what you say: It is an extremely joyful thing to find satisfaction in what we do, and it is definitely a reason to be thankful when we have the opportunity to work in an area where we can combine professional satisfaction and putting food on the table, and yet: Work is still work and Vlad's is definitely a good one.
I am Ukrainian and I come here when I need to explain something to western minds. The incredible gift you have for translating the information is mind-boggling. WE DO REALLY REALLY REALLY NEED TANKS IN BAHMUT! And time is of the essence. Thank you for everything you are doing!
@@MrGlossyEdits Come on bro.. You can't still believe the lie that Russia ever attempted to take Kiev? Where was the 'Shock and Awe' style millitary bombardment in advance of the offensive. Where was the 500,000+ troops required to take a city of that size? Every major player in this conflict agrees/confirmed that Russia and Ukraine had a peace agreement in the works by late March 2022 - which would have guarunteed Ukraine's territorial integrity and organised for all Russian forces to withdraw to the pre Feb 24 lines. Boris Johnson scuttled this peace proposal because nobody gives toss about 'Ukraine' or 'Ukrainian's'. Certainly nobody in the West gave a toss about the Russian speaking Ukrainians who have been under seige since 2014.
You're so pleasant. One positive thing about Zeihan is that he probably gathers support for Ukraine from people who might not have supported Ukraine otherwise. Not necessarily pro pootler but "let him get Ukraine" type of people.
Zeihan's take was more pro Russia originally. More like a Mearsheimer analysis. But now that he realized that being pro Ukraine sells better, he changed his story a bit. That's why he still says 'the think about saying NATO forced Russia to attack Ukraine is kinda technically correct, but not really'.
I've watched a lot of Peter's talks and will continue to do so. I also know that no one is infallible, but had no perspective before this to compare to his. I have subscribed and look forward to more of your sober and thoughtful analysis.
The big picture things Peter talks about are so obvious that people take his assertions as arrogance. China has a demographic collapse on the horizon there is just no getting around that fact.
omg that quote by professor Greene was perfect to end on especially the bit where he says: "...they don't seem to delve into any in-depth analysis of Russian politics or decision-making. Instead, they tend to project abstract assumptions about how states behave, derived from one iteration of international relations theory or another..." Projecting abstract assumptions about how states behave is exactly what some people do. It's similar to what you have said about an approach of looking at a picture of Russia taken from 10,000 feet in the air that some people use (Mearsheimer I think specifically) Both things absolutely help crystalize everything about this sort of approach so well. Ty for the video! :)
Yes, this video was of value. Thank you. It's important not only to look at Russia, but also at the people talking about Russia in the West. It's easy to completely misunderstand the other side and then make fatal mistakes. As a philosopher you have probably heard of or read "Fiasco" by Stansislaw Lem. This story came to mind here.
@@bighands69 Still waiting to see the huge differences in geography between Russia and the United States. Russia doesn't have roads because it doesn't have prosperous people who need them.
@@bighands69 Geography used to be a necessity for prosperity but hasn't been true in a very long time especially in the Modern western world. Russia is an anomaly in the developed world in it's willingness to invade it's neighbor. You no longer need to have 2 Oceans or Mountain Ranges to develop into a prosperous nation. I think a nations resources are what's required to have a prosperous nation. Resources include the people that make up nation which is probably the most important resource.
Let's resurrect the word "sovietologist" as a political epithet and apply it Mearshimer for his staggering self-confidence despite being catastrophically wrong about the possibility of the current war Let's also apply it to Zeihan for calling the last several presidents "populist," with each being more populist than the last.
How many times has the Russian state been invaded since they have had nukes? Zeiman never explains in his " fortified gaps" analysis, why Russia's possession of a significant strategic arsenal isn't enough to rationally protect them from invasion.
The issue I always have when I see Zeihan talk about Russia is that he'll talk about his predictions in concrete terms of 100% certainty, as if they've already happened. Which causes me to recoil because obviously no one has any real certainty about what an aspect of Russia might be in 5 or 10 years time. Then it's quite hard to take anything he says seriously.
That's the life of a think tank boffin you are seeing. After all, he was literally paid and made by sitting in an office and having people pay him to be told the future. You don't make a good prophet/profit if you don't make it sound good to the people paying you.
I watched some of Peter's stuff early in the war. I realized quickly it was sort of intellectual fast food. Lots of grand assertions, couched in rather absolutist terms, that often lacked a follow on argument or evidence to unpack how he came to that assertion. It sort of leaves you with little traction for criticism or even evaluation, for lack of more information. You are either forced to be overly charitable about his points, or kind of put them in the trivially true catagory. As a philosopher myself, I simply found that too frustrating to continue following and moved on to other sources of information. He might be right about a lot what he says, I am just interested in doing his homework for him.
Intellectual fast-food, is the correct assertion. It's food ; it nourishes but it's formulaic ; meant to excite the taste buds and it doesn't provide any subtlety. If you feed on it once it a while it's entertaining, but as an actual regimen to base your life on, it's toxic.
Intellectual fast food seems to be the right interpretation. He presents a gamifeid version of reality that attracts more people into the subject. This on its own isnt necessarily a bad thing but it can be when people confuse this gamefied version with actual reality. There is an awful lot missing in his analysis and we should take his assertions/predictions with healthy spoonfuls of salt.
@@yellowledbutter for this subject of geopolitics surrounding Russias invasion of Ukraine it is difficult to find. The reason is the situation is very dynamic. First you need to answer what do you want to know. What led up to this? What is happening now? What will happen in the next couple months to a year? Five years out? Anyone discussing the latter is purely guessing. What's happening now with the war, sending weapons, etc there are lots of good sources, e.g. Denys and Perun. For historical context you can listen to Timothy Snyder's 2022 Yale lecture series or the Mearsheimer talks. For what will happen in the next weeks to a year with the western response I think DW panel discussions are good. And the IWM Vienna series is a good source with lots of interesting background.
My opinion is that Peter has a global strategy consulting company, so creating a consumable opinion is his business. His customers are corporations that hire him as one or the inputs for their own strategy teams, the books and appearances are marketing.
Anyone, so-called expert or otherwise, who uses such hyperbole and language of inevitability, immediately elicits in me skepticism that he actually knows what he’s talking about.
This was fascinating. I've watched a few of Peter's videos and am half way through his latest book. It would be interesting to have Peter on the show to justify some of his theories!
I mean... it's a skill isn't it? If it's such bullshit and a con why don't you do it were it so easy? He's not exactly wrong. He just hyperbolizes and generalizes to not get into too much detail and makes assumptions which are indeed to some extent "judgements" of situations rather than objective truth. But why would there be objective truth in hyperbolic statements or hypotheticals anyways? It's a show, but it's not complete bullshit.@@AcademiaCondorcet
I always feel like Peter presents everything in such a black and white manner, instead of shades of grey. Like his confidence in the collapse of China due to population collapse. It may be his most probable assessment. However its not beyond the relms of possibility that robotics, automation and AI could more than mitigate population decline.
I think his analysis is not just based on their inability to produce. Even if China could suddenly make technological leaps to offset that, I’m not sure what AI will be able to do on the decline of consumption demand and lack of capital. Cheap boomer capital is what made this all possible. I think Peter is pointing to what will happen when capital is so much more expensive.
I don't think that Peter's point is that China would not be more productive going forward. I think his point is that mass retirement, smaller and smaller demographics of younger people paying taxes for retirees will put too much of a pressure on government finances (healthcare, less tax revenue, pensions) to be able to handle it. That's what I understand as nation collapse due to population collapse.
You do realize that those robots don't consume or pay taxes right? The only solution automation solves is production costs. But it doesn't replace manpower if the problem is also affecting consumption and tax revenue. You can replace every factory worker in China with a robot and the end result is those replaced workers now can't consume or pay taxes. The manufacturer will be making money but the Chinese workers that Xi supposedly is pulling out of poverty will plummet right back to poverty.
I am new here and I appreciate the mild skepticism of some of Zeihan's (occasionally hyperbolic) assertions. My defense of Zeihan's body of work is that regardless of your view on the specifics (which sometimes matter very much) of an international situation, Zeihan offers a coherent fact based construct on demographics, trade and energy which I find unmatched by anyone. This construct then offers a lens which can be used to assess international policy trends and decisions. Zeihan's construct offers a valuable tool for consideration of what (broadly/globally) might come next although Zeihan himself admits that only a very general timeline is possible and I agree with your implication that Putin's (and Putin's advisers/associates) mindset cannot (should not?) be assumed by analysis using the general construct.
@@11235but I think that is the all the basis of geopolitical analysis,meaning there is some sort of Demographic/Geographic determinism which allows you to predict future behavior.
So by picking through your flowery vocabulary, it is to my understanding you're saying that Peter Zeihan knows something about everything, but at the end of the day his conclusions are purely guesswork, hindered by not knowing very aspect of the topic fully. But if we knew the answers would we be asking the questions? If we value the quality of our received answers to our questions, would we be asking the truly enlightened or a soothsayer?
@@Gary-Seven-and-Isis-in-1968 "Flowery" language aside, Zeihan does a good job providing explanations for 1. Why Ukraine is happening 2. Why it's happening now 3. Why NATO is supporting Ukraine so vigorously 4. Why the sanctions are aimed as they are and 5. What the implications are for an interdependent globe when the #1 export supplier of so many essential raw materials is no longer filling that role. Those are pretty good topics of interest for government and industrial customers and Zeihan then sells his services to identify the specifics. Zeihan's stuff is NOT a perfect predictor of outcomes and personalities do matter so region and country specific subject matter experts are always going to be relevant to a given situation. My point here is both types of analysis are necessary and useful.
George Friedmann offers similar analyses, also presented in style. His 2009 book "The Next 100 Years" is quite prescient... I scoffed at his predictions for about now regarding Russia and hypersonics, but no longer.
That’s the politest way I’ve ever heard someone say “nah, mate, not good enough!” Thanks for putting words of many of the suspicions I’ve had about ZH. Next it would be fun to hear someone who knows about China do the same.
@@VladVexlerChat I'm happy you did this at least - seems like the youtube algorithm has recommended you and ZH to many of us who are interested in politics, history and demographics :)
In PZ's defense. He ISN'T a Russian/Putin expert, especially on his mindset and worldview. He covers every single country, including their demography, economics, political leanings, geography, alliances, trade partners and Import export strengths, Military defense, and their neighbors among other factors.. He does this with EVERY country around the world mind you ( takes a second to learn that) .. Then cross references that with every country they are in contact with now, will be in contact with soon (as countries are emerging), and may not being in contact with if globalization trends continues to decline... After that analyses of EVERY country of the world, tries to shape a picture of how EVERY country in the world will effect other countries, and how the entire world may change. That's quite a task in it self, welcome to geopolitics. So no, He's not going to understand the psychological worldview of every single leader, as most experts might understand only a handful of leaders anyway.
@@xfactorb25222 I don't think we disagree. Much of my problem with PZ is that he has a tendency to make very definitive statements about things that are either very fluid or very open to interpretations. It might simply be that he's American and they often speak in a much more direct way than the rest of the world, even when it comes to subject where I think you should be more careful. It's a complicated world, and we can't be experts on all subjects - but I love it when people try to look at the bigger picture, so no disrespect to PZ.
@@Nygaard2 LOL. Damn, I can't really argue you with the American point.I may have came across some way too, not intentionally. But no, you're not alone, a lot of people think he's arrogant. I don't think he intends to come across that way. He's been around for quite awhile, pretty spooky accurate a lot of times. He just caught on here lately and I know he said he did 190 speaking events last year. So, I think he almost knows the questions coming and just fires off. If you like the psychology behind Putin and Russia, or at least a different ( kind of blunt) take then you may usually hear, I will give a recommendation if you don't mind. It's a long podcast, but timestamped if needed. He's one of my favorites. Stephen Kotkin.The host is of Russian descent too, so it makes it... different? ( not sure of the right word there) take care. ua-cam.com/video/2a7CDKqWcZ0/v-deo.html
Russia's territorial security relies on their nuclear weapons. Zeihan is arguing that Russia needs take over swathes of NATO territory to be safe but that is impossible with conventional warfare. So if their security relies on nuclear weapons then this invasion is now pointless in achieving Russian security.
I have a couple of issues with this territorially based analysis of Russian security, which treats international relations as if we were all engaged in a giant game of Risk: 1. Russia has tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, which render it essentially immune to invasion 2. If Russia wants a cheap and effective solution to what it imagines to be a security crisis on its western border, I proffer a trivial solution: become a functioning democracy, with free and fair elections and a free press. Because, democracies do not attack other democracies. In reality of course, I doubt there are any Kremlin strategists who genuinely fear any foreign incursion, rather as Vlad explains the calculus is all about defending Putin and his kleptocracy from internal threats, which would be vastly exacerbated by the example of a free and progressive Ukraine on its border.
Well put, and an essential example of a realm of consideration which Zeihan's methods are incapable of grappling with. Russia's "insecurity" is the regime's insecurity, magnified through the twin lenses of autocratic fears of democratization and the Russian history of supporting a strong central state through the manufacture of external threats and territorial expansion. There is a vast difference between "Here's how I can use my framework to explain the current reality" and establishing a causal link, especially when any human motivation outside of that framework is essentially hand-waved.
This is a fantastic crossover that I wasn't expecting this morning. First of all I wanted to say that Peter Zeihan definitely comes from the category of analysts that would agree that saying a 15% chance of nuclear conflict never sold any books. He has correctly identified that selling certainty in an uncertain world is his job, so he frequently overstates and also says things with much more confidence than they necessarily warrant. At the start of the video you said that there wasn't a foundational idea that could be attacked behind Zeihan's ideology, but there is. He is very much a Geographic Determinist, and his arguments logically follow from that framework. I tend to view Geographic Determinism as a good 80% rule, where it can help you get 80% of the picture but the rest needs to be filled in by the hands of people. I think your point about regime security vs national security is absolutely warranted, but I feel like Peter is making a much more broad point about the geographic conditions necessary for anyone in the Kremlin to feel either the nation of the government is secure.
Agree with you on the geographic determinism point. Peter seems to have a fondness for geography, and a blind spot there in it's emphasis lacking other factors. But that's ok. Once you KNOW this, the rest of his work is quite valuable.
@@vp4744 When you are being paid to give a prescriptive solution the last thing a client wants to hear is "well I am pretty sure this, but that is also likely."
@@ferrariguy8278 Yeah, his work really has helped me wrap my head around the energy sector in particular as a layperson. I just think that it is something that Vlad might want to look into because he went after Mearsheimer for an overreliance on an intellectual framework, and in the video he seemed unaware of the fact that Peter is also speaking "as a proponent of" a certain framework.
There's a book called "Nothing to Envy" about North Korea's regime. I felt like reading it gave me a head's up on how Putin thinks. He basically can not afford to have a neighbor who is 'worth envying' because that will cause his people to go "THEY have ABC so why don't WE have ABC?". And when a populace does that, suddenly a regime becomes accountable and Putin can't have that.
@@Chibling Ehhhhh not so much. If you go to Taipei (I've been), MOST of the tourists are mainlanders, to the point of annoyance. Same with south Korea. Jeju island's main tourists were Chinese until the pandemic. Taiwan to me is more about...destroying a kind of 'multiverse' alternative. Like destroying the "idea" that a separatist regime even 'made it'.
@@futureshocked Yes, and a democratic one at that. The CCP wants people to think their "economic miracle" was entirely their doing and wouldn't be possible without them.
Go back and listen to this Peter I wanna say probably early March and he talks totally different he is a gentleman who I think we in the west say he ride the wave.
You do realize that Zeihan is a demographics and logistics expert. He deals with logistics of people and things and their effect on the economy. He gets to sell books and gain fees for consulting if he can make things sound worse than what they are, but his thoughts would not sell if the numbers weren't correct. He is not a political expert or a military expert. He is an expert in logistics and demographics and how it relates to economies of scale and how they interact with each other. You shouldn't think less of the fish because he can't ride a bicycle. Just as the fish can swim, Zeihan can easily create hypotheticals which will be alarmist to sell books. As for your Russian experts, they are a joke as Russian experts as Zeihan would be if he was being seen as a Russian expert.
Vlad, you are a Russian expert in my view. I am an analyst. by trade, who can't help analysing the hell out of everything. A bit of digging into Peter Zeihan, when I first encountered him, revealed a Doomsayer (for all outside the US). He takes basic race characteristics, brings in some well-made actual data points, chucks in some demographic stats and then makes huge leaps towards whatever torrid end-point he decides for that country/civilisation. I do quite like him and he is bright, even if a bit sensational and he has great backgrounds!!!
To me, he seems to do the kind of systemic analysis, consulting firms do, when they are called to deal with a corporate crisis: Their analysis has often some value but more often ignores details and hidden factors which did not enter the model. Whilst too many details often obscure the bigger picture, they can be crucial. The difficulty is to find the linear approximation whilst not ignoring the non-linear factors.
@@mina_en_suiza Yup, I can see, in Peter, the entry of the great geopolitical analyst, from the Consultancy firm, speaking with TOTAL conviction on the extreme extrapolation of a couple of data points to some conclusion without any thought that the people involved may see what's happening and change course. Peter's pop and Vlad is content.
When Joe asks if the Russians are thinking about their demographic problems, Peter said "I think that's what's driving them". Not an awesome answer but it is still an answer.
Vlad, this was superb, his certainty does seem to be based on a world that is just big geopolitical chess pieces that just can’t account for uncertainty people bring to the table. When he talks about the future of the US that uncertainty seems to be dismissed even more. I hope all the work you seem to have been doing recently isn’t taking its toll ❤ Slava Ukraini!
I'm a big fan of Zeihan, but understand that one person is not going to be right on everything (especially when future events are utterly unpredictable). I really appreciate your analysis of his statements on Russia, pro and con. You're always thoughtful, generous, and more interested than substance over rhetorical bomb-throwing. t's crucial to listen to many intelligent voices on geopolitics, and you continue to teach me a lot about Russia. Keep up the remarkable work, Vlad!
@@damiangilz *When faced with something online you don't understand.* 1: Left click and highlight the word/words you don't understand. 2: Right-click over the highlighted area and select, "Search For" 3: Start reading the various links you are presented with. 4: Pace yourself. Finding out you may in fact be as uninformed/stupid as others keep saying you are can be hard to work through. 😉
@@damiangilz He gets things right, he was one of the few to call out China fearmongering, pointing out the clearly botched demography at a time when everyone was fearing the dragon.
Zeihan is a "cartoonification" of true, wise analysis. But he talks with the incredible assurance of a salesman who could literally sell freezers to Eskimos.
An observation on language styles and content... As a science educator, I strive for clarity and precision of language because my material is quite complex. This allows students to focus on content, not delivery. Peter Zeihan uses hyperbolic language that oversimplifies complex issues to make bold conclusions and predictions. His audience is focused on his delivery of generalized content and grand proclamations. Having listened intently to your UA-cam videos, I find your content to be informative and thought-provoking… and delivered in a quite complex, layered language. I am not sure if this is how you speak naturally, or if it is consistent with the language of philosophical thought. I often turn on closed caption with your videos to make sure I get correct 1) the Russian names (though closed caption often fails) and 2) the intent of your sentences. Every sentence for me is a slow walk through both content and delivery, and I frequently rewatch segments to better interpret your message correctly. This is not a criticism nor request for change… just an observation on differences in delivery styles.
Thanks 🙏 again for this interesting and well informed discussion of the current political situation and historical background. You always get me thinking and improve my understanding of Russia 🇷🇺 - thank you! I have been recently wondering why so many Russians and supporters of Russia vehemently deny that Russia has ever engaged in imperialism or hate that label “imperialism/ colonialism” when used in regards to the Russian empire/ Soviet Union…. Why do they think only the “West” or “Western countries” have expanded their influence/ power against the will of the inhabitants of other countries? And Russia/ Soviet Union didn’t? To be clear, I am against Imperialism/ Colonialism, but I don’t think “only the West/ Western countries” engaged in this type of selfish and aggressive expansion of power of territory which shouldn’t be ours… would be very interested if you could do something about this topic…
Imperialism always assumes that the own expansion is right and good for humanity, while rivals are evil and detrimental (allies might be excused from this for as long as they're useful)
Thank you! I hope to talk about the Russian imperialist psychology. In the West it is anti imperialism that so often leads people to defend Russian imperialism. The mechanism is cultural narcissism, above all a kind of America-centrism.
Peter is a Geography and Demographic generalist not a specialist. His frame work is useful for understanding where we are and how we got here, but you do need specialists to help understand things futher.
Your commentary from 1:45 is so helpful! As I'm pretty new to internet texting, I recognize this pathological reaction in myself. And I almost always regret it... after I've sent a text that is grounded only in my personal fears and insecurities. Learning to breath deeply and to take time to develop a response which truly reflects all of my values is very important.
One of my main disputes about this take against Peter is that generally his focus is on economics and he only dabbles in the political space everyone has hyper-focused on his China and Russia analysis because of current politics but a lot of what he talks about is about agriculture and sub-Saharan Africa southeast Asia South America Industrial production in regards to changing investment landscapes but ever since the Ukraine war everyone wants to hear his take on something that takes up very little of his original analysis and partly to Peter's fault since he's been getting a lot of traffic on Russia in the stuff he talks about in regards to Russia he's been producing more and more material that inflates the exact same amount of study that he put into it long before the war he really hasn't done too much research since then he's just been reiterating what he had already talked about
A Vlad Vexler Video Guide: Pause Video > Settings > Playback Speed > 2x > Resume Video Love you Vlad, just not your speaking pace. SN: I like Peter Zeihan. He's a very smart man and I own one of his books, but sometimes I think he makes guesses on subjects he doesn't have adequate knowledge of instead of just saying he doesn't know. It's a bit of a grift, albeit unintentional. Rogan pressed him at the end of that episode and he left rather abruptly. You could sense he was uncomfortable. That said, I do think he's correct about most of the topics he discusses.
I’ve watched Peter Z for a while. His earlier stuff was much more focused on and based on a handful of determinant factors, most especially demographics. He would look at that data, project into the future, and put a stake in the ground and say country X will have a very hard time getting too far away from this reality. There was a usefulness to it, and an intellectual honesty, when taking about broad global trends. As you’ve pointed out here Vlad, he is bringing in far more factors here, on something very specific, and saying the future will definitely look like this. There is a lack of rigour in the multitude of individual factors he talks about now regarding Russia as compared to when he talked about a handful of factors and broad trends. I still find him useful in that he highlights individual factors to be considered and what they mean. Regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine, he is trying to have a nuanced conversation and the strengths he does bring are getting lost in the noise he is adding. As always I love your insight and your consistently high standards of intellectual honest and rigour aimed at understanding the world and making it a better place.
I applaud your relative patience with him. When I watched this interview I struggled with emotional triggers of essentially having met several "Peters" in my life. There's an element of using truth to tell a lie, or, coming to a misguided conclusion based on a sort of controlled grandiosity. That you can pass on misinformation, whether intended or not, if you speak quickly, move on to another point just as quickly, name drop an be articulate... you are given the credibility by someone like Joe, who failed to challenge him on too many occasions. What he does is a "Jedi mind trick" in a sense. I personally found his conclusions on renewable energy and EVs to be simply incorrect. That he's "the only green that does the math". Then proceeds on with no mathematical or logistical data points to support his statements. Excuse my language, but he set off my Bullshit detector too many times for me not to be suspicious of his arguments. There are clearly some cognitive biases, possibly financial interests, attached to those semi-falsehoods that are at play which corrupt his ability be reasonably accurate. Unfortunately all while being very good at SOUNDING reasonable and therefore accurate. Now I don't know if this is intentional or genuinely misguided. Probably both. There seems to be a level of "drinking his own Koolaid". Anyway, he does not deserve the platform he currently enjoys of being considered credible council. I'd probably go as far as call him a charlatan. A "geopolitical analyst" that cannot pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly is a major red flag for me ;) Very interesting analysis and perspective. You got my subscription.
O333B - I too was reminded of Jim Jones while watching/listening to him; though my sense is that he's probably got a really secure bunker set up there on some mountain near Denver and may not be interested in gathering a bunch of acolytes.
Vlad, would never have noticed the rash if you didn’t call attention to it, you have such great eye contact with the camera, my focus is always on your eyes and facial expression. Hope you are feeling well enough, as always thank you for your insights.
I started watching Peter about a year ago. Initially, I was impressed with his analysis and conclusions. However, the more I listened to him to more I recognized the outlandishness of some of the things he was saying. I eventually came to the conclusion that he reminded me of someone that use to travel from town to town selling the latest and greatest thing. Then I transitioned to understand that he is a "doomsayer" who has been saying these things for a very long time and it is only recently that the narrative he is selling has come into vogue. I take what I hear from him these days with a grain of salt.
I am so glad you are doing this type of analysis. Peter Zeihan speaks in a very authoritative way and his videos show up on UA-cam for people interested in topics he covers. Perspective checking and fact checking is very important. I caught him on a few inaccuracies of fact but I am no expert. So I might give some of his assertions more credence than they deserve. He does make some valid points which might be new ideas to many of his listeners. I would even recommend his videos to friends who need a deeper dive. His strength is really in the underlying economic and demographic analysis. However, he is way too certain in many of his predictions - humans react to adversity and can change and you predictions go out the window. But his authoritative certainty in outcomes is the real product he is selling.
Peter takes geography and demographic trends and pushes them to their further logical extensions. If he knows something about the geography and demographics of Russia (or China or Mexico, or the U.S.) then he knows where this is going. The question is will these trends continue in a linear --and predictable--way or will artifacts (and surprises) confound them? I think Vlad makes the case that Peter's certitude ignores intervening factors.
Demographics is real hard science, far more reliable than Economy. It can give good predictions. Natality in Russia (and in Ukraine) has fallen after collapse of USSR. Putin spoke about that and also started several programs to improve Russia's natality, but those failed.
While demography and geography are very important one can not use them in such monocausal manner. That's just intellectually unsound. I use another example: psychologists, social psychology, microbiologist, geneticists, neurologists, anthropologists, evolutionary biologist might all come up with a different explanation for the same behavior - and some times these explanation are outright contrary. In spite each being in fact based on real hard science, measurable data, sound methodology. An expert needs awareness of the possibility that there may be other valid explanations for any given observation or circumstance. And multiple factors - including outside the experts expertise and knowledge - interacting. Returning to demography and geography - these two are important factors but they are not the one-and-all explanation for social and political make-up of a society and the political decision the leadership of a country derives from it. There a whole host of other factors that shape the believes and actions (from history to personal psychological make-up of individual leaders).
I kind of see the whole "extinction of nations X, Y & Z as a people" as a dramatic 150% exaggeration to make a legitimate point. Ageing population means an unbalanced ratio of young people to retirees which means you need the young men to keep the "lights on" and can't throw them into a high loss of life war.
@@scottn2046 I don't see it as too far of a stretch otherwise Japan wouldn't be acting so desperate. Nobody is seeing this as dogma but his point is if Japan is having stark economic realities of an ageing population I think other countries with a low skilled work force would act even more desperate. Extinction of nations is not new and this era of piece has made people arrogant in order of nation states as we see them today. Many academic active geopoliticals argue for extinction of states like Bosnia if Balkan countries continue to stagnate.
Comments on your critique of Peter Zeihan I have read several of Peter Zeihan's books, and have reviewed his work in the context of Russia for at least the last 11 months. As a base line for this discussion it is important to note: - Zeihan is not a Russian Expert - and has never claimed to be. - He is openly influenced by demographics more than any other field - His predictions are based on large macro trends (which in the abstract have limited historical precedents). - On the basis of Demographics and Macroeconomics he predicted a 2022 war in Ukraine in one of his early books (circa 2015) Peter Zeihan is very clear on his area of expertise. His theories are fundamentally influenced by macro-trends on key inputs to economic prosperity. These inputs include: - Age profile of populations - Access to cheap reliable energy - Presence of Navigable rivers - Effective administration - Engagement with immigration (he sees a clear advantage in open societies - or immigrant cultures) - Strong Democratic systems with a balance of regulation and investment. His predictions for Russia are only part of a more global analysis which focus on the network of global supply chains that underpin technological growth and economic prosperity in the wake of the second world war. . He comments frequently on the Bretton Woods agreement and is very clear on the effect that free trade has had in shaping global societies. (in particular those with access to blue water ports). He recognises the growth benefits of globally integrated supply chains, but also notes the fragility when those same networks are confronted with politically motivated fragmentation. Peter's syncretic approach does fall short when making deductions that draw on societal effects. He openly states that he cannot account for large social movements, except to highlight the influence that age demographics have on the prevalence of unrest, or the preference for stability over reform. He does make reference to the 'general political character' of different societies and often uses that as a basis for more specific prediction about lines of fragmentation (China's three zones are a good example of this). Zeihan describes the Russian foreign policy mindset in terms that reflect a 19th century view of geopolitics: in effect… Russia wants to control avenues of approach, secure food, fuel and water, influence neighbours through control of their markets and internal narratives. Russia needs to ensure economic freedom through access to blue water ports for both military and merchant purposes. Zeihan doesn't delve in to the individual motivations of specific leaders, but does recognise the overarching trend for authoritarian governments to prioritise survival of the regime over all else. The key difference between Peter's work and yours Vlad - is the depth to which you focus on Putin's individual motivations and the social contract that his regime has with the people of Russia. Peter doesn’t focus on that in anyway… instead he views Russia as semi-homogenous society with declining economic prosperity, declining birth rates, declining standards of education and crucially - a very insular polity with a strong survival instinct. Peter makes several comparisons to China who he views through a similar lens. My view is that both of your analytical approaches are complimentary: With the macroeconomics (Peter's work) setting the priorities and options open to Putin, while the actual policy decisions are always going to be based on more proximal dialogues and Putin's own world view (clearly your bailiwick). I have been following both of your work for the last 11 months and see no clear conflict on your individual theses. My one criticism of Peter Zeihan's work is that he discounts the resilience of human societies when confronted with instability. Yes - the demographic changes we are facing are not frequently observed in our recorded history. Examples of large scale depopulation that come to mind include the black plague and maybe the bronze age collapse. However a more nuanced view of demographics would need to accept the deeper work of the Club of Rome (1972) which highlighted a general trend toward lower population growth in the mid-21st century - and more specifically the trends that follow the inflection point in any population. This point arrives not simply as the result of limited resources - but also the general influence of education standards, life expectancy, automation and specialisation. My own preference is to combine many of his observations with those of E.F Schumacher - noting that a smaller society is not simply a scaled down version of what we have now - but a different beast all together. In this context 'different' doesn’t imply worse. Zeihan does use annoying amounts hyperbole and generalisation - which often elicits a similar reaction to Rogan in this interview. Reading his work I am often frustrated by the need to look deeper into his few societal observations, but his demographics are generally correct. And while he is cautious enough to rarely drift into policy recommendations, his confidence in his method is clearly evident. When viewing his work I choose to accept his predictions as a general indication of pivot points (within 5 to 10 year windows) … where inaccuracies are often attributable to divergence from 'All things being equal'.
One of my biggest fears in writing is making an argument that is true, but besides the point. The whole "Russia needs geographic barriers" argument struggles to climb out of that trap. Doubly so because it's a very aesthetically beautiful argument. You can tie it all the way back to concepts of the world island and "hard data" like demographics and physical geography. If only relevance coincided with aesthetics. :_C
@@colinhobbs7265 You can make ample money by knowing in advance what's going to tank. Short selling and borrowing. Bet they're just as delighted to hear that. Growth is slow, measured; crashes can be big and abrupt.
Hi dear Vlad, I really enjoyed this reaction video, I hope you’ll do it again. You are very generous with giving him “passes”, and I try my best to assess my thinking and I do see how it can be beneficial to “give someone passes”, and let the conversation move on without interrupting and in that way destroy any chances to understand the message (generally speaking) I appreciate how you pause the video, quickly points out factual mistakes, correct them and then let him speak again. I wish I was as patient as you’re, and I’m taking the opportunity to learn and I take notes 📝 I hope all is well with you and that you’re enjoying your weekend. With kindness and respect, Grace 🤍🕯️🙏
I think the important thing about Ziehan’s performance on Rogan is that it challenges the anti-Ukrainian dialogue from the Russian propaganda being spewed by Fox News, OAN and Newsmax. At least it explains the perspective of NATO.
With Vlad about to subject Zeihan's writings to a midrash, would've been rash not to reassure sensitive listeners. -Enjoyed the dramatic intro, and glad it was not troubling you, Vlad: hope you remain constantly the beneficiary of your kind, loving spirit.
Omg thank you Vlad! Iv watched Zeihan for a couple years and find his ideas quite interesting. But there isn’t much out there that I can find that directly combats him bc He’s such a generalist. Seems to me that most people that have what’s necessary to deliver a contrasting view are experts in their specific area of academia and not much else. So I was actually seriously thinking two or three days ago that I would really love to hear some of your thoughts in his worldview.
Hi Vlad, may I kindly suggest a collaboration partner? The suggestion would be the Australian Ytuber "Perun". He makes videos that look at deference industry, logistics, doctrines, mostly connected to the Ukraine conflict (because his first "serious" video* he made, he made about i)t and so on. .Quite excellent video, might I add. This sounds maybe strange, but I think the 2 could have great potential to complement each other. Also I think that Perun does understand the importance of Philosophy and history and the importance to understand mind sets. So I think he would welcome to work with you. *his used to make video guides for games, but with the invasion he made a video "All Bling, no Basics" to explain why Russia could fail the way it did and sealed his fate.
Just stumbled upon this video. Thank you, Vlad, you have a critical way of shredding apart all of Zeihan's oversimplified interpretations of history. If I listen to his videos, it astonishes me how certain he is about politics and how he totally excludes politicians from most of his hypothetical scenarios. In a very centralised country like Russia, such a way of seeing politics leaves out most of the reasons that cause the events
One thing to note was that a little before the clip presented here starts, Zeihan talks about some similar ground work to what Vlad has pointed out. He mentions how the nuclear rhetoric has become less fierce in the last few months as Putin realized that he was being well tracked by US intelligence, and also points out that regime change in Russia would be the only provocation of note that might lead to a nuclear catastrophe, citing the possibility of a victorious Ukraine attempting to invade pre-war Russian borders, as a potential provocation. Still, he indeed does say some things that don't seem to line up well with Vlad's analysis, or that of others.
Hey Vlad, hope you are doing fine. You know, i think you have been a bit too harsh on Peter Zeihan. Let me give you an example. If you ask men why they like wide hips in young women, i bet almost no one would say because human babies have very big heads. Yet that is exactly the ground truth reason. We men have to very much like women that way, because other women wouldn't be able to bear our children. So we men evolved to like women that way. So when Peter talks about the almost no existing infrastructure and very low population density of the wast spaces of Russia, he is talking about the ground truth reason, why Russia has to be perpetually on the attack. And of course Russians can be puzzled by that. As you described in your video about Nikolai Gogol and his novel Dead Souls. And also the fact that even for Russians Russia has no well defined borders. Men also don't think about big baby heads when they react to a young women with a nice figure. So Peter is of course in the same way wrong in saying Putin attacked Ukraine because he needed to plug those access routes for attack. Putin wasn’t thinking of that. But with the ground truth explanation he is spot on.
Most social scientists think that the demographic Peter is referring to is a reason NOT to start a war. That’s just an observation. Beyond, to establish his claim, Peter would need his idea of the cause of war to be present in the minds of the people who started the war. The issue here is that I can’t think of a single country expert who can be persuaded that that’s true. Peter’s best move is not to fight this, but to show how his unsupported view somehow serves his project in ways that make sense.
Thanks for your reply! ;) You made a fair point. If somebody would have liked to prevent this war Peters explanation of the supposed causes wouldn't help very much, one would need to engage with the thoughts of the actors. On the other hand, i maintain that Peter put his finger on one of the root causes of russian militarism. It had to be this way, otherwise we wouldn't have had the russian empire. They inherited that from the Mongols and the Golden Hord, who had to solve the same problem.
@@isolvedagi305 if it’s a root cause, it has to run through the psychology of the main actors - to some extent. It can’t just be an abstract functional claim.
@Jon Little Mate sorry to shoot you down a bit here ;) First some nitpicking. Vlad clearly stayed in his lane by merely observing what social scientists say ;) So disagree with them. But more to the point, what you describe is some version of the invasion story, which usually draws a violent response. The younger the populations involved the more violent it gets. Exactly the situation at the and of the 19th and beginning of 20th century. Which brings me to my second point. Vlad said "the demographic Peter is referring to", meaning an aging and declining population. The invasion part is not really there (before 2022, who was coming to Russia in large numbers) and more over i would guess what those social scientists observe is that younger populations (young males) are more aggressive, certainly to instigate revolutions but apparently also wars. With an aging and declining population one usually does not go to war for lack of apatite. Ether way Putin doesn't care. They are aware of the trend, thats why they steal children. Although there certainly also is a genocidal motivation behind it. But thats more a opportunity they take advantage of, because its just bad math to lose more than 100000 dead to kidnap maybe 20000 children. So Putin doesn't care. Which makes Peter wrong and the observation of the social scientists not applicable.
@Jon Little Peter Zeihan's stick on Ukraine is: to the north and the south of the Carpathian Mountains
, on the other side of Ukraine, are access ways to the great Eurasian plane for potential invaders. So the war always had to happen. Russians are aware of their aging population, so it had to happen by now, otherwise they wouldn’t have enough soldiers. Sounds awfully lot like, we are getting old so lets do it now.
There certainly are examples of governments going to war for domestic reasons. For instance Putin in Ukraine. There are even more examples where that’s not the case. It seams to be more a result of the functioning of the political processes in the country in question paired with significant militarism. As you might have noticed, your line of arguing entangles population decline with nativist rhetoric. But that makes it harder to straight argue: population decline -> war. In your answer to my response you focused more on economic problems, as a result of demographic decline, as triggers for possibly going to war. Fair enough. Since demographic problems are fairly recent. Lets say 30 or 40 years. Find me a war in this period where you can show your case. If present day China goes to war, i would grand you that example. I will not add anything else. Everybody can read the whole exchange and think for themselves.
I have read 3 of Peter Zeihan's books this last year. He speaks in absolutes because he is paid to give advice to governments and corporations. He knows he might be wrong and has been wrong about his past predictions, but he is not going to stop speaking in absolutes about his predictions on the future because that is his job. I like listening to his ideas. I think about 50% are brilliant, and 50% probably aren't going to happen. He's an interesting free resource on UA-cam that I follow. What I like about him is he has developed a lot of haters for his predictions and he couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or says about him. He isn't going to change his mind unless it is data driven.
Thank you for sharing Jake!
Agree very much it makes no sense to freak out at Peter!
Hi Jake, you and Vlad are my most favourite Channels on this tragedy in Ukraine.
I have also seen you mentioning Zeihan in your own video some month ago and I wanted to reply back hen but had to go back to work and then I eventually forgot it.
I agree that Zeihan, over his professional career, has developed a very interesting and practical geopolitical model, which served him well at plenty of occasions. As mentioned also in this video, he predicted the War in Ukraine 5 years ago, which definitely deserves merit.
However I think that, appart from haters which should be ignored, plenty of criticism is justified and he should not be seen as a reliable source, but rather as someone who developed a cunning geopolitical model and sells it for a living. Before you say I am just another hater, here is a clip where he explains why he never cites any sources in his books:
ua-cam.com/video/Ai6OOQrt7_o/v-deo.html (starts at 1:48).
,,the hole of human history is my input and if I were to cite everything that had some contribution to what I thought the citations would be a lot more than 480 pages".
That statement should objectively ring some alarmbells and shows Zeihan cannot be trusted untill one checks the facts oneself.
Other statements, for example that some country will sooner or later invade russia if they dont expand to their old sowiet size (which has also been shown in this video) is so absurd that it can't be defended as hyperbolic or with the benefit of the doubt.
As I recall, last spring, Zeihan thought Ukraine was going to be flattened immediately. His viewpoint has changed significantly, and I think he is probably close to explaining the root cause of the war now, and what we are seeing in the method of support from the US government.
I love that information. Thank you. It puts things into context, more.
I think Peter is a great speaker, but man he gives off an air of arrogance it's tough to take him seriously as an academic.
He is a puffed-up ignoramus.
Agree
That's because his statements are aimed at the American general audience. You can't make ambiguous statements and still be able to sell your books.
Peters actual works like his writing has more nuance and ambiguity to them which is why I give him a pass for his hyperbolic and often outrageous statements which he surely merely makes to increase engagement with his work.
He's right tho.
@@joey199412 Not sure which books you have read, but especially his last book is very much like the content on his youtube channel and not very nuanced.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every Joe Rogan episode had Vlad Vexler Verification enabled!
I would be busy!!
@@VladVexlerChat Wish you'd do it for his Tulsi Gabbard episode: she very sincerely opposes the war effort in Ukraine (I think she's consumed by fear of nuclear war). Would be heartwarming if you could speak cordially with her, helping adjust her views, as many of us respect her "aloha" true intentions.
@@lolakauffmann
Yes, definitely.
I installed Spotify especially for this conversation...and uninstalled it immediately after.
You'd probably need a different expert for every episode. The whole value of this is that Vlad stuck strictly to his own areas of expertise.
@@zetristan4525 I share your views. If we let us be bullied by threats of nuclear retaliation, we might as well leave the world to tyrrants like Putin, Kim and Xi. And that’s obviously not going to happen. We need to counter the blackmail from Putin and his terrorist threats by maintaining a firm, steady pressure and an united front against his cunning manouvering. The whole point is to have a realistic understanding of the best/worse case outcome and keeping an unofficial diplomatic channels open, and simulataniously being willing - and make this stance very public - our willingness to use military power in order to defend us.
"I'm going to be rude"
- proceeds to be as polite as possible
Thank you. I've followed Peter Zeihan for a couple of years now and have grown increasingly skeptical of a number of his views as of late. (Largely because he has made some factually inaccurate statements about finance and technology of which I have some knowledge.) I normally wouldn't care, but Zeihan's star has been rising lately and more people are starting to listen to him. He has a well oiled performance that he gives in front of general audiences and rarely speaks in front of experts. He also speaks with absolute conviction about everything he talks about. However, I've grown concerned that I don't ever see him speaking to groups who are actually real experts in any of the fields he discusses. This means he rarely engages with people whom have deeper subject matter knowledge than himself and thus is rarely challenged on any of his ideas by people with the intellectual capacity to do so. I'm glad that he is finally gaining the attention of real subject matter experts and academics who are starting to challenge some of his ideas.
The way PZ speaks shows what he thinks of others
@@caveman1334 Peter Zeihan is the P. T. Barnum of geopolitical consulting.
@Randy Jones just googled PT you mentioned
Yup 🤦♂️🤣🤣
I'm guessing bitcoin and EVs? And you're really into both? Am I right?
@@astronomenov99 Bitcoin yes. EVs no. Zeihan likes to make snarky commentary about many things he has not sufficiently researched. It is unprofessional and it really just makes him look dumb to people who actually have a more specialized knowledge than he has on a given topic. As I like to say, Peter Zeihan is the P. T. Barnum of geopolitical consulting. Entertaining and contrarian, but should be listened to with a high degree of skepticism.
I would appreciate a full series exlucisvely on critical thinking from you Vlad.
I look forward to talking about thinking more soon, in more detail.
@@VladVexlerChat I second this!
Yes me also.
Absolutely this was a great critical thinking exercise
Me too! I'm in
As a big fan of Zeihan, I've been dying to see a smart person challenge him, so thank you for this! The thing that has always kept me iffy on Zeihan is he doesn't really traffic in academic spaces (he'll often go on investor podcasts or business conferences), so he rarely gets push back from serious commenters. Again, I largely agree with a whole lot of patterns he points out (demographic crises, geographic challenges, reorganization of globalism, etc), but he doesn't seem to see the difference between analysis and predictions. In the podcast, he talks about the looming disaster in China; he's spot on with the numbers and disastrous domestic Chinese policy, but there is no human alive who can predict where China - let alone the entire world - will look like in 10 years. We can make patterns, point out emerging challenges, and even offer solutions, but nothing is ever set in stone.
Thing is, no one can see the future. We all get things wrong. It's part of being human. Therefore I don't automatically believe anyone's claims at face value. That said, I attribute more credibility to some than others. This channel rates highly in my opinion. I also like Zeihan.
George Friedman has a similar take on everything.
I first found Zeihan lecturing at Ft. Benning about a week before the Russian invasion.
You know why he doesnt get there. It would get slammed back. In front of non-experts it s always easier
He's basically a generalist, an intellectual jack of all trades. That's what came out in this video, he knows more than the man in the street but less than an actual Russian expert. So put him next to an actual Russia expert and he'll be crushed, but what probably happens behind closed doors is he asks that Russian expert a lot of good questions and is a good listener - and those conversations are half his job. But compared to that Russian expert he knows more about China and Brazil, global supply networks and demographic trends. What he says about anyone topic has to be taken with a massive grain of salt, he's full of hyperbole, simplifications and focusing on the trends that interest him, it's the big picture stuff that's his bread and butter.
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 Heroyam Slava 🇺🇦
😂😂😂
Watching Peter Zeihan is like watching a good zombie film. Tou know it is nonsense, but the apocalyotic what-if escapism is hugely entertaining.
Exactly, he is an amazing talker and by the end you will buy his turkey roaster, toaster and set of lifetime sharp cutting blades.
Great comparison. Thanks.
This community is such a joy. The thoughtful comments, from different perspectives, are such a breath of fresh air. Thanks Vlad.
Thank YOU!!
Peter's next book "Future Now: Dawn of the Man Bun" captures the inevitable hierarchy that man buns will command.
Future Now: Dawn of the Man Bun - a viewpoint through the mirrored sunglass lens, ho ho
I keep telling Zeihan: "Get a damn haircut, you old hippie you!"
I have read all four of PZ's books and listened to a lot of his online content; yes hyperbole is part of his presentation style and I have long learned to decode it as a form of dark humour. He is very much a generalist. not a Russia expert. His analytic approach is not going to be the same as someone deeply immersed in the details of Kreminology or Russian culture. He adds another dimension to the picture that does not necessarily contradict your own.
Agree. I'm ashamed to admit it but the hyperbole really helps me understand and remember. I just decode it later on by turning the dial from 11 to 8. :)
@@Alpaholic Also agree and oddly enough that's similar to how I dealt with Trump - except maybe from 11 down to 4.
He’s the daredevil of geopolitical punditry and I can respect that. The problem (if it is a problem) is that a segment of his audience only listens to the parts that they want to hear and that confirm their biases. You know, the uneducated, opinionated, imbeciles. A secondary criticism is that he dances around certain issues. This is obscured by his willingness to go out on a limb on other issues.
My worry with Pete’s appearance on Rogan is that Rogan and his audience are the uneducated, opinionated imbeciles. They’re the ones who will latch on to Pete’s hyperbole and amplify it. For example, they’ll use Pete’s predictions about the retreat of globalism as an argument for isolationism.
@@Alpaholic Oddly I agree. I find nothing wrong w/ Peter's "chirpiness" you just have to mentally dial it down and there's a lot there once you do.
@@MarcosElMalo2 you are incorrect, sir. Joe Rogan’s audience is not a bunch of imbeciles… It’s exactly the opposite. He has the most popular podcast in the world-to generalize in such a way is really immature and irresponsible.
I remember when Peter Zeihan said that the closest country Germany can get gas from besides Russia is Nigeria. So no his not very clever, he knows how to sound clever by sounding surtian. NORWAY is of course the closest country Germany can get massive amount of natural gas from and they are now the biggest supplier to Germany. And Norway said they can supply more if they get more long contract.
Now if he didn't now that quite common info then what else does he lack?
Thanks!
Thank you!
I have been waiting for this for a while..... I have subscribed to both you and Zeihan's on UA-cam since the start of this conflict and I enjoy both perspectives. And I have been waiting for someone to take on Zeihan's overarching arguments. You are nuanced and insightful. Peter's pronouncements are always sweeping and generally more entertaining. Well done.
Yes - Vlad and Peter both bring very different styles of thinking to the discussion. One is a political philosopher, the other a geopolitical analyst and I would not expect them to agree while still finding both well worth listening to. Peter's core idea is that the long term fate of nations is determined by geography, demography, climate and security - which is a very different starting point from a political approach which rests on personality.
I do agree that there is a small climate policy component to the causes of the war, interestingly.
@@philipwilkie3239 I think demographics played a big part into Russia's invasion, even subconsciously. The plan was to quickly annex Ukraine and use their human capital to revitalize the dying Russian Empire's demographics. Except what happened was the war was extended and their plan backfired creating a brain drain and capital flight that compounded the very problem they were trying to mitigate.
@user-ii7oh7hk6x Maybe subconsciously or at the level of Zeitgeist, but it seems to me that based on the evidence available, Russian leaders are motivated by short to medium term profit above all else, regardless of how much they might reference a shabby version of history.
Russia's leaders are well aware of demographic decline, but it's hard to believe that they planned to solve this by incorporating a country with many of the same issues.
his books are great too - if you like Zeihan's content I would suggest, if you haven't seen it already - his presentation for the army at fort benning, and his presentation for the navy at the navy post graduate school
With your measured analytics and judgement and your knowledge you're one of the people who are an immense benefit for democrats and supporters of Ukraine worldwide. Especially since the cause can be lost in a crazy information space and false expertise on both sides of the conflict. As a student of political science who lived in Russia and harbours friendship for all the peoples of the post Soviet space I appreciate your work a lot.
I have also studied and lived in Russia and had many russian friends, very generous and caring people who was always willing to help out and support and do their level best. Consequently, I have a high regard for russian people … individually. But it seems to me that something unexplicable affects russians as a group and in my experience, all russians I have encountered regards ukrainians as less developed and take an arrogant view of Ukraine, in a way that is not questioned. But what is worse, is that no russian I have met (so far) have expressed a sense of moral responsibility for the horrible crimes committed by the rulers in Kremlin upon Ukraine and it’s people. Like the Kholodomor, to name one tragic incident. There have been many more. I have observed a clear externalisation of guilt, ‘it was done by Stalin’ or ‘that was NKVD’. Noone seems to take responsibilty for the crimes and misdeeds caused by Russia as a whole. This is quite different from for example how modern germans react to the crimes of the Nazi regime and how ordinary germans contributed to the many terrible things the Nazi Germany subjected others too. Then again, after the WW2 there was a real de-nazification and a lot of deep soul searching in Germany. As far as I know, there is no parralell to this in Russia.
@@Mr.Monta77This has resonance for me. If you watch interviews with russian POWs on Zolkin's channels, when they are asked - why did you come to Ukraine to kill? they ALWAYS say that it was an order, or they don't know why, or they aren't interested in politics, or some other banal statement. In other words, they totally refuse to take responsibility for their actions in Ukraine. Totally. It's disgusting.
@@cl4re4d4ms About Russin POV. Most behavour is learned behaviour. It’s the same with racism or other prejudice. What I don’t get is how easily how many russians (of course, speaking very generally) let themselves be led by Kremlin propaganda. After all the rubbish they got their ears pumped full of during the USSR years, why are they not better inoculated against the current propaganda? At least today, most russian have access to alternative news sources and can use a VPN. I suspect the imperial arrogance is deeply rooted in white, urban russian culture. They can be very racist and arrogant towards other ethnic minorities in the Federation, like Dagestan, Kirgisistan, Uzbek or many others: these people certainly does not reach the same level of cultural ‘quality’ as ‘old russians’. I have many times observed this myself. And not the least, the action and ‘philosophy’ of the many extreme right wing russian nationalist (many, highly aggressive and dangerous) are a danger to minorities and many murders have been committed by such. It is therefore ironic that russians want to de-nazify Ukraine. There are many nationalists in Ukraine, a direct result - I believe - of the centuries of russian oppression of their country. But I strongly suspect they are a much smaller number than russian nationalists.
@@Mr.Monta77 I see people saying this a lot, but I don't believe that it can possibly be true: "At least today, most russian have access to alternative news sources and can use a VPN. I suspect the imperial arrogance is deeply rooted in white, urban russian culture."
Consider, first of all, that their median income is around 400$ per month. That is the figure from before the current economic sanctions. I imagine it will be a lot worse now. Tech such as computers is slightly cheaper there, but not by much. With that median income and those economic realities, how can you conclude that the majority of Russians have access to a personal computer, a vpn and the internet?
Speaking of the internet, I live in Canada, and we are not technological slouches. Nonetheless, due to our vastness and fairly low population density (which makes us a little bit comparable to Russia), rural internet coverage is very spotty and even non-existent in many locations in Canada. I am not sure if it even exists in the rural north, and if it does, it will be purely government funded. Does Russia have such a mandate to provide media connectivity to all of its citizens? I don't know, but I somehow doubt it. They have well-known issues with basic infrastructure, sanitation and transportation, so I am sure that broadband or even cellular network availability is somewhat further down the list of priorities for citizen care.
When I read people saying that, I think that they must be assuming that Russians have the same economic freedom, lifestyle and access to information as we have, here in the west. That's an assumption that simply should not pass after we take even a cursory glance at the numbers that reflect the lived reality of the Russian people.
It's likely that young, intelligent, gainfully employed and well-educated people in the large city centers will have access to these things, but they represent a very small minority of the Russian population, taken as a whole. For the rest, given that they are poor, less educated, more remote and skewing a lot older, you cannot make that assumption. Even if you don't look at income vs prices, just consider how much ease the older generations in the west have with technology. They're famously averse to it and also famously credulous if they do manage to figure out something like facebook.
Russia's computing tech was dwarved by the west, too. There was a little moment where they could have come out ahead because they started well, but the Party did not understand the importance of computers and all but abandoned them. They only encountered the informational age after their economy started to recover after the collapse, meaning in the 00's. That's very, very recent.
So additionally, these people are not native to the information age. They have only just arrived in it. Therefore, how on earth can someone conclude that their grannies and rural people are more proficient at it than the ones in G7 countries? No, it doesn't make sense to assume that the majority of Russians have access to countervailing narratives or analyses at all.
@@Mr.Monta77 Just seen a tube about the Buriat. There is 190 differrent nationality in Russia. Erasing every national sentiment (other than the one for Russia) is a way to kept their empire together...
As a person who values both Peter and Vlad, I think it would be interesting if the two had a chat. Much more than Vlad's analysis of Peter's chat with that the Joe dude.
"with that the Joe dude." Oh, that irrelevant, unknown, silly minded guy that has the biggest podcast on the planet known by countless millions of people? Mate, I tried to be charitable but that comes off as a pretty, "I'm above it all" attempted throwaway. If I'm wrong, and I don't think I am, it's going to be a hard sell. Cheers.
@@Ididntaskforahandleyoutubei am not your mate, buddy. Anyhow you're missing the point. The type of Analysis Vlad did is a waste of time on Peter's discus with Joe. Because of Joe and because of his audience. Also, who cares if Joe is known by a lot of people. So is Kim Kardashian.
@@user-fp9qp7ts3k "I'm not your mate, buddy". Ok now I am confused lol
@@user-fp9qp7ts3k I’m not your buddy, pal.
@@Shm00ly I'm not your pal, guy
Peter can sometimes offer some interesting viewpoints from the prism of demographics, particularly if you're not really used to thinking about things through that lens, however personally this is where I found his videos usefulness to end for me; they are sensationalistic in nature, making grand predictions, sometimes based off of a single factor or assumption, and ignoring the fact that global geopolitics is a very complex system where it's never about 2+2 equals 4, but more about a whole lot of small decimal factors coming together to equal something, and as such making definitive predictions of events is very difficult, if not impossible. If Zeihan was to be believed, Ukraine would have lost this war several times over by now, China as a state would have collapsed months ago, same goes for Germany and the EU at large. Another commenter used a very apt term here - intellectual fast food. You're better off trying to find your own sources and getting to your own conclusions.
The guy is a typical narcissist.
When you encounter overly confident, smooth talking and charming people, always be on alert and look beneath the facade.
He's selling himself, his lectures and books.
There was a coup 1991. Gorbachev was detained at hi s vacation spot for three days. The demonstrations for him were successful, but Yeltsin then took over. From my perspective, Gorbachev wanted to prevent civil war-like conditions.
Peter Zeihan has only the perspectives from the US. A little bit to much glory for the US. But on his demographic terms and his geographics terms he is right.
His mistake lies in ignoring social components or in simplifying many other factors that also play a role.
Where he is right, Russia isn't a democracy and Putin is a dictator.
Thanks! Even though your tough to follow sometime for a non academic.
Thank you - I am still learning to be a better explainer!
@@VladVexlerChat I don't think it's you. It's me
Nice
Hyperbolic statements are a trademark of Peter Zeihan the problem is some people don't get that he is being overly dramatic for a reason. He is good at marketing, I watched him on a forum in India and he played the Indians like a fiddle, he knows the general pulic mindset of his audience and uses it to his benefit.
So sorry you are right I should start to expect all geopolitical analysis to be dramatized hyperbole.
Mr. Vexler, your ability to create context while at the same time avoiding thoughts and words that could create conflict and then offering reassurance is refreshing beyond belief. Thank you for all you do.
Salva Ukrani
Heroyam Slava.
My please!! And thank you!
Москаляку на гиляку? Получай фашист гранату.
I like the part where he states paraphrased” The Ukrainians have just recently formed a national identity “😂😂😂
It is interesting to listen to Peter Zeihan address areas where you know something about the topic. As a Canadian I have heard his pontificating about the future of Canada. It was for the most part a caricature, and as such was recognizable but probably not useful as a tool of policy planning.
That was of great value Vlad, thank you.
Peter Zeihan seems to buy into Tolstoy's theory of grand historical movements, rather than history being influenced by the intervention of key leaders. As you point out Vlad, Zeihan has his theory based on his future demographic prophecies; but he is not providing evidence that this is how Russian leaders actually think. It is noticeable than Zeihan keeps referring to "the Russians" rather than Putin. Tolstoy's theory that Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 was actually some mass movement of Western Europeans into Russia for some bizarre mystic reason, wasn't credible when he wrote it (although it was a fun commentary section of War and Peace) and it is even less so now.
There are quite a few American pundits of this nature, who try to apply grandiose geopolitical theories to nations without doing the proper research to understand the idiosyncrasies of the nations and their leaders. Humans are not quite the communal robots that these theoreticians believe them to be!
It is not that Peter doesn't provide explanation of how Russian leaders think, Peter doesn't take into account how they think--he is providing just the constrains of the problem, which has the advantage that are less uncertain and disadvantage of being less subtle. It is interesting to notice that his point of view is completely complementary to Vlad's.
Psycho Paths! Hijack POWWER
and destroy the world
this is predictable
and it will be worse
It's over 4 decades since I read War and Peace. So this is risky. But my hazy memory of my impressions of those pages where Tolstoy breaks off from the narrative to dis the significance of the individual figure, Napolean -- *because he is* an individual figure, if I understood and recall correctly his claim, is as follows: Tolstoy intertwines this "Napolean doesn't really matter" stuff with a respect verging on hero worship for just how much rests on admirable attributes of the individual psyche of General Kutozov.
My thoughts while reading (as recalled now): Tolstoy needs to make up his mind. Either high profile historical individuals can matter, or they cannot, or something in between. I can't accept that they all don't matter on one page; but then this one does actually matter a lot on some other page. Is my memory of the inconsistency accurate?
On the other side, how many "Russian Experts" declared that Russia would invade Ukraine last year? Even after the leaked communications from Putin by the American Intel services, so many talking heads kept mentioning that it was just posturing.
Mearsheimer: Did someone call me? ;)
The thing about Zeihan (and his mentor George Friedman) is that they come from a position that assumes that no matter who is in charge of a particular state, they will act almost identically to each other based on the "geopolitical chess board" as you put it. Zeihan takes it further than Friedman and delves into demographics and statistics more than anyone I've seen. While informative in its own way, this approach does miss out on a lot as you point out.
My other problem with him is that he always comes across as trying to say what he thinks people want to hear. The US will always come out on top, everyone else sucks. He really appears (to me at least) to be going in overdrive in marketing himself.
Even though he's recently been putting out videos analysing different political leaders and their leadership styles?
The US does come out on top. If not even Trump could bring them down, what can?
Particularly the British…
I don't think he is saying what he thinks people want to hear... because every time I listen to him, he says things I DON'T want to hear all the time... Also, for the past many months, all I've heard was that the US is doomed to fail nonstop... Peter is literally the only person that went against that narrative in my experience. It's weird. He is the biggest whiplash change I've heard from when it comes to the US lol
Peter is right, in a way. US has a successful economic recipe
This is very valuable work. Thousands are following various media platforms and pundits while lacking guidance on analysis, critical thinking and fallacies, source balancing and credibility assessment. This kind of 'walkthrough' case study of current affairs videos is so beneficial in equipping users with these vital modern skills, to arm /armour ourselves in a dangerous and continuously contested information environment. Thank you and please do more of this for the benefit of the community. We appreciate your efforts immensely and linking you allows us to help others as well.
I agree this has teal value. Pointing out where generalizations, assumptions or theories ignoring facts come in to a speakers narrative. I have not listened to the speaker Peter. But I have heard one of his theories I believe in western news analysis, that war is driven by the necessary proportion of young people in an increasingly aging population. Such simple but logical sounding theories obscure the actual political and cultural situation.
It is exceedingly refreshing to find someone who is both critical in their analysis of statements and willing to be charitable in their interpretations.
As someone who loves Peter Zeihan's content but can see that he's far too sure of himself about specifics given how much of a generalist he is, it's great to see him taken to task by a specialist in their area. This very much earned a sub to your main channel. :)
Far too sure of himself - pretty much sums it up. Early on in the war he said "oh Russia will absolutely win this, no question" even then one could see Russia wasn't going to win given the incompetence, crappy equipment, the 40mile long traffic jam where fuel and other supply trucks were being targeted. Essentially one system that was a strict top down military based on loyalty vs one in which Zelensky concentrated on rallying the country and getting the international support while leaving the actual military decisions to his army officers.
Zeihan is knowledgeable and has a team but sometimes just rambling things like "Treaty of Westphalia in 1066"? makes one pause.
@@peterkratoska4524 Russia hasn't lost yet. I'm a fervent supporter of Ukraine but I'm still worried. The Russian meat grinder is being refilled at a high rate.
@@astronomenov99 Agreed they haven't lost yet. The meatgrinder is being re-filled at a high rate but also an unsustainable rate. And this is currently for a couple of towns that arent even strategically valuable.
a good Russian point of view on this is Max Katz (a former municipal politician in exile now) his team has daily video essays and examines a lot of the factors.
Recently he pointed out the numbers of willing prisoners that can be recruited by Wagner is a limited number (Russia has 400,000 in prisons and some 20% have family support but a lot are cannon fodder no one cares about)
Its also not likely that Russia can repeat the surprise attack they did a year ago. They had the element of surprise, they had the massive advantage in men and equipment and yet were not able to get to and have enough to surround Kiev.
There's massive amount of equipment lost not to mention artillery shells (The US can produce 15000 per month, the Russians are using 20,000 per day. They are buying from North Korea and drones from Iran. You don't even hear about Iskanders as they're all used up.
A lot really depends on one person - as it is Putin's project and he can't back down but all it takes is one helicopter to crash (one of his crashed just a week ago, he wasn't on it)
If Ukraine happens to cut off and take Crimea, the Russians will remove him on their own. I mean there have to be some 5000 oligarchs and cronies who have lost a lot in the last year.
@@astronomenov99 Here is one of Max's recent videos on the Russian casualties ua-cam.com/video/IER6PYrzRbU/v-deo.html
@@peterkratoska4524 I wouldnt say far too sure of himself, he was taking the position most people were taking, and so he just agreed with the consensus, considering russia sweeping in 2014
I'm so pleased to see you address Peter's work/statements Vlad... he's someone I follow, and temperamentally at least, you and he are at opposite poles within my geopolitical media consumption. You, Vlad, relish nuance and intellectual caution, whereas Peter is all about the hard determinism of select factors (demographics at the top). It's quite seductive! He also clearly loves to perform.
I'm incredibly grateful to benefit from your analysis of his views and his approach to the world, I would welcome more!
Good comment 👍
Peter is in the business of advising government agencies and private corps so I think it’s necessary for him to make predictions based on his analysis otherwise his business model would not be very profitable
"Select factors," indeed. Not accounting for or readily distinguishing between the quality of land, impact of climate, and the work ethic applied within those limits, purely on the agricultural-economics and transportation-infrastructure fronts, is an example of why Peter represents more "pub speak" than analysis that is useful for understanding what international public policy and aims should be. It is commonly said that "the Devil is in the details" and developing a reasonably nuanced understanding is important in any situation like this, especially one with troubles that have persisted for centuries despite a variety of approaches taken.
@@ReflectedMiles honestly when speaking to specific industries he does dive into the specifics. The company I work for had him on and he’s very insightful. However I don’t think that would make for an entertaining podcast aimed at the general population.
@@Cad-k7j My guess would be that he has specific exposure to, and/or experience with, those industries. Has he observed the differences in a farming village in Russia vs. one in the Czech Republic, as I and many others have, with enough discussion with the locals to understand some of the most rudimentary and important differences in how they function? Either he has not, or choosing entertainment as the priority for a podcast on such a serious topic raises other questions of judgment. I will say that the degree to which hyperbole and sensationalistic entertainment value has overtaken "conservative"-oriented media in the last couple of decades has done that segment no favors towards actually understanding others and situations in accurate, nuanced ways, so perhaps you're right on that.
Peter Z is a fine raconteur, however as an analyst I find his breathless doomcasting unconvincing. He is often addressing an audience in his videos but the speaking event is never named. Also, he's always on the road, "Peter Zeihan coming to you here from [insert US city]". My theory is that he speaks to investor clubs of mostly older guys who, like a lot of retail investors, are looking for a hot tip, the inside track, the REAL story, etc, etc. Peter's in-a-nut-shell super confidence appeals to that audience. He seems like a nice fellow personally but notice how you can switch his geopolitics subject matter with some Silicon Valley tech subject matter and he'd sound exactly the same, that West Coast salesmanship.
Sorry but do you read the descriptions?
He's from the midwest and came to the spotlight in Texas at a think tank. I don't think there is anything West coast about him other than having the complex that comes with a similar cult of personality a la Musk (who it must be said, moved to where Zeihan lives).
@@LackofFaithify I know he's from Iowa. I just feel his style of delivery reminds me of West Coast and the need to always keep the brand visible as you alluded to.
@@yewtoob2007 Well put. I'd barely heard of him when I watched some Rogan clips a few days ago, and my impression was that he was a semi-knowledgeable grifter who talks tough to appeal to the bros who listen to Joe Rogan.
A lot of Zeehan's content is hijacked by unscrupulous UA-camrs who edit his talks often without context, attach the click-bait titles and add stock video footage. I question a lot of what he posits, but avoid anyone repackaging his talks.
My main issue with Zeihan is that he sounds way too definite and confident, I don't trust such people. He makes many statements without supplying evidence or qualification. He needs to be asked this question: "How do you know that to be true?". Thanks Vlad for the interesting and constructive commentary.
He supplied evidence.
Unfortunately most people who sound overly confident are, but sometimes someone actually knows their sh1t and the two can be confused without clarification.
Nothing wrong about self confidence IMO. But. Zeihan really seems to have a tendency to short circuit / over simplify topics. Like extrapolating trends ad infinitum. I somehow missed his thoughts on disruption and systemic crisis (which are powerful tools to challenge the status quo) regarding several topics he addressed.
There are always unexpected events in history, and crisis can make countries and group of people react in surprising ways.
@@mitanni0 Yes, I suppose it is the over simplification, but then his audience is on UA-cam, so what can one expect? (exception being Vlad's audience who are fine with complexity it seems)
This reminds me of the WW2 saying, that plans were useless after contact with the enemy, but the planning process was invaluable.
Basically planning is unreliable in multifactorial environments, but knowing the broad sweep of things is necessary to help shape even rapidly changing responses.
You can draw an analogy to weather. Ignoring weather in military situations can be disastrous, but it is by no means solely determinative of military outcomes.
Peter is like a prophet, he tells you what will happen, everything else being equal. Things are never equal, and the primary purpose of all prognostication is to avoid predictable difficulties.
As a geography teacher I have listened to Zeihan since 2015. And although his knoledge of general geography is very good and his knoledge about supply chains is considerable, the man has always had a tendency towards sensational predictions and statements. He will rationalize a prediction by stating historical "facts" and if the fact doesn't agree with his prediction he will change the fact, just like he did about Gorbatchev working for the KGB. He also has a tendency to preach for his crowds, since he travels all around the US giving lectures about all kind of economic/financial subjects. About two years ago he did a lecture in soy producing US state (i don't remember the state) and he said to the crowd, which was mostly made of soy farmers and investors, that they shouldn't worry about Brazillian competition since Brazil has awful soil, high dependency on international fertilizers and bad logistics, even claiming that Brazil's agricultural exports could be easily disrupted by some people blocking two or three of our highways. He also praises countries with great geographical features like Argentina and France, predicting that these countries have brighter futures ahead because of theirs great geography, almost ignoring all the human aspect about these nations. In the geography field we tend to call people like that as geographical determinists. So, I find him to be very knowledgeble, but in a generalistic superficial way. And he is always making sensational statements either to please the crowd or to get noticed. And also because if he makes a mistake, which he himself admits he will get his predictions wrong 9 out of 10 times, no one will remember or care. Most people only remember when you get something right, specially if its very sensational.
Yes, Peter always ignore that there could be responses and mitigations to situations. Deterministic as you say.
I don't think his knowledge of commodities and supply chain is particularly good. He knows just enough to confidently bullshit his audience.
The one time I've heard him talk about a field I'm familiar with all he did was spout 15yo political factoids. Mostly wrong. Mostly irrelevant. And mostly 10 years out of date. He then used that to draw some mighty conclusion.
Maybe he is well versed in everything except my topic. Or maybe he bullshits them all and trusts you don't know enough to challenge.
@@geyrek5955 you may have a point. I didn't want to sound too sure of myself, but he does give that impression some time. Like a more or less well informed sophist.
@@Mic-sg
" Like a more or less well informed sophist."
I tend to feel that he may be more nefarious than that. He doesn't speak in good faith; whatever his motives are, they aren't to inform the audience well.
Here's a video I found debunking not only his interpretation of facts, but his facts themselves:
ua-cam.com/video/660baZoWnoQ/v-deo.html
as a teacher your spelling is crap.
In 2014, he did say that Russia would attack Ukraine between 2021 and 2022. If anyone doubts, he has a video right here on UA-cam from 2014 with him saying exactly this, you guys can check it out. And he said that in a moment where everybody laughed.
Exactly, Peter looks at things in a very special and analytical way like few people can. He was much often right than wrong and if he was wrong than not far away from his assumptions.
He makes numerous grandiose statements, some are bound to be right. He also been predicting that China will imminently collapse for more than a decade now.
Nostradamus made a career of making many predictions, many of them wrong. But people like confident predictions.
@@danieldpa8484 the only time I’ve heard him put a timeline to the collapse of China he predicted it to be around the year 2030 I believe, we’ll see what the future brings, their housing and demographics crises are not good
@@Adam5576 retrospectively everyone is a genius but to put in forward an analysis is always a display of skill if proven correct. We will find out how things unfold while reviewing and completing the data on all the different predictions.
We need more responses like this! Thanks Vlad
I hope to do more
@@VladVexlerChat Peter Pomerantsev had some good observations on the latest Silicon Curtain video. You could pick up couple of them and say a few words more.
Watching this was time well spent. Thank you! There are conversations worth having and the way we have them matters. You've presented a great example.
Having worked for a long time in finance (being a mathematician), Peter's analysis reminds me very much of the kind of business analysis, you would get from a consulting agency when asked about how to deal with a corporate crisis: The answers aren't always wrong (Peter was right when he said, we should support Ukraine), but you will often find a certain ignorance about intrinsic facts regarding the company and the market it moves in, so the analysis is often incomplete.
Better analysis does not necessarily lead to better policies (you can be right because of the wrong reasons, and you can be wrong, despite knowing better - we will always make mistakes), but I see a more philosophical problem here:
People like Peter (and business analysts) are convinced that models are actually as true as reality itself, when in reality they are an abstraction, created to help us to understand and to deal with the terrible complexity of life. In that way they are extremely useful, but should never be conflated with reality itself.
Just because the Maths checks out, it isn't necessarily true.
It's often been said that all models are wrong, but some models are useful.
@@mikebarushok5361 Exactly to the point!
Despite this: I despise the crowd that usually works for consulting companies (namely McKinsey).
The one problem I have with this that where do the get the demographic models for 'end stage demographic collapse' which is essentially where Peter places several nations with warped demographic patterns, most notable Russia, China and Germany. I don't think we've ever had a situation where technologically advanced civilizations have had both declining birth and mortality rates for successive generations. There's also nothing for the leaders to work on except demographic forecasts but what they essentially would need is policy recommendations. "Man, you guys are so screwed, you're done, it's curtains" isn't going to carry the policy making very far.
@@Katoshi_Takagumi Country leaders are probably well advised to look at Japan. The country is already a couple of years ahead in the demographic shift, and they might learn about how to deal with a rapidly ageing population. Yet, in Western countries (Germany e.g.), problems are currently mitigated by migration, a way, Eastern countries are probably not willing to go.
@@mina_en_suiza Well, typically you welcome migration, if you welcome it at all, from countries that are not too dissimilar and can provide you with labor. Robots are another solution, but I don't think we are quite there yet in terms of mass scale applications.
Asides of the issues being discussed I have to say how engaging you are Vlad,just lovely, and so friendly,thankyou for this.🧡
Thank you!!!
Dear Vlad,
I just want to thank you, for your "work" and the way you are showing these complex matters. You are truly wonderful human being and you are inspiring me in so many ways.
I wish you a lot of health Vlad.
From Poland with Love !😉 👍❤
ps.
As for Peter, I have a weakness for his theories, and his argumentation can be convincing. However, I am always looking for other points of view. All the more thanks for this material and your time.
Peter is a good entertainer. I do not say this to slam him. If you are going to sell books and lectures, you have to hold the audience, and most audiences care less about details. Vlad explores the nuances of people, which is enlightening to me. I dont think their ideas compete. People are asking Vlad to "prophecy" the way Peter does. That is not what Vlad wants to do, in my opinion.
Why did you put "work" in quotes?
@@mina_en_suiza When I'm watching Vlad in some moments (like at 8:20-8:25 in this particular video) I can see this kind of joy that you can see on a man's face when he knows what he is doing in professional mean, but at the same time can be as natural and joyful as one can only be. Like my parents who are pharmacists. Both great at chemistry and making real medicines to heal people. They love this, both can already retired, but don't want to. So in some way it is more their passion then work.
@@TheSmokinBuddah Very true what you say: It is an extremely joyful thing to find satisfaction in what we do, and it is definitely a reason to be thankful when we have the opportunity to work in an area where we can combine professional satisfaction and putting food on the table, and yet: Work is still work and Vlad's is definitely a good one.
@@mina_en_suiza He's THE BEST! 👍
I am Ukrainian and I come here when I need to explain something to western minds. The incredible gift you have for translating the information is mind-boggling. WE DO REALLY REALLY REALLY NEED TANKS IN BAHMUT! And time is of the essence. Thank you for everything you are doing!
You had 6,500 tanks (source: Wikipedia). Those 100 tanks that you *may* one day, eventually get, will not change anything.
Don't worry. Those [Russian] tanks will be there shortly.
@awdrpepper *runs out if gas 10k from objective and has to walk home*
Kiev 2.0
@@MrGlossyEdits Come on bro.. You can't still believe the lie that Russia ever attempted to take Kiev? Where was the 'Shock and Awe' style millitary bombardment in advance of the offensive. Where was the 500,000+ troops required to take a city of that size?
Every major player in this conflict agrees/confirmed that Russia and Ukraine had a peace agreement in the works by late March 2022 - which would have guarunteed Ukraine's territorial integrity and organised for all Russian forces to withdraw to the pre Feb 24 lines. Boris Johnson scuttled this peace proposal because nobody gives toss about 'Ukraine' or 'Ukrainian's'. Certainly nobody in the West gave a toss about the Russian speaking Ukrainians who have been under seige since 2014.
@@peppybocan you're a joke.
China is 5000 years old and Zeihan stated that China has 10 years left...
Demographics collapse my dude and by 10 years i think he means the point of no return.
You're so pleasant.
One positive thing about Zeihan is that he probably gathers support for Ukraine from people who might not have supported Ukraine otherwise. Not necessarily pro pootler but "let him get Ukraine" type of people.
Good point.
Zeihan's take was more pro Russia originally. More like a Mearsheimer analysis. But now that he realized that being pro Ukraine sells better, he changed his story a bit. That's why he still says 'the think about saying NATO forced Russia to attack Ukraine is kinda technically correct, but not really'.
@@Prometheus4096 did he? ua-cam.com/video/rkuhWA9GdCo/v-deo.html
Until it's not profitable and he switches his predictions to appease Russians.
@@zesky6654 true, he is self-serving in the end
Slava Ukraine ❤
It was very enriching to hear your thoughts. Thank you for your time and effort!
Pleasure!
Man speaks way to confidently about almost every topic. Jack of all trades, master of none.
Zeihan is entertainment IMO
I've watched a lot of Peter's talks and will continue to do so. I also know that no one is infallible, but had no perspective before this to compare to his. I have subscribed and look forward to more of your sober and thoughtful analysis.
The big picture things Peter talks about are so obvious that people take his assertions as arrogance.
China has a demographic collapse on the horizon there is just no getting around that fact.
omg that quote by professor Greene was perfect to end on
especially the bit where he says: "...they don't seem to delve into any in-depth analysis of Russian politics or decision-making. Instead, they tend to project abstract assumptions about how states behave, derived from one iteration of international relations theory or another..."
Projecting abstract assumptions about how states behave is exactly what some people do. It's similar to what you have said about an approach of looking at a picture of Russia taken from 10,000 feet in the air that some people use (Mearsheimer I think specifically) Both things absolutely help crystalize everything about this sort of approach so well.
Ty for the video! :)
It's like reviewing a restaurant by looking at it via google earth
@@VladVexlerChat lmao true
Yes, this video was of value. Thank you. It's important not only to look at Russia, but also at the people talking about Russia in the West. It's easy to completely misunderstand the other side and then make fatal mistakes. As a philosopher you have probably heard of or read "Fiasco" by Stansislaw Lem. This story came to mind here.
Peter is talking effectively about geography and how culture develops around that.
@@bighands69 Still waiting to see the huge differences in geography between Russia and the United States. Russia doesn't have roads because it doesn't have prosperous people who need them.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican
It is the geography that allows prosperity or does not allow it.
@@bighands69 Geography used to be a necessity for prosperity but hasn't been true in a very long time especially in the Modern western world. Russia is an anomaly in the developed world in it's willingness to invade it's neighbor. You no longer need to have 2 Oceans or Mountain Ranges to develop into a prosperous nation. I think a nations resources are what's required to have a prosperous nation. Resources include the people that make up nation which is probably the most important resource.
Let's resurrect the word "sovietologist" as a political epithet and apply it Mearshimer for his staggering self-confidence despite being catastrophically wrong about the possibility of the current war
Let's also apply it to Zeihan for calling the last several presidents "populist," with each being more populist than the last.
How many times has the Russian state been invaded since they have had nukes? Zeiman never explains in his " fortified gaps" analysis, why Russia's possession of a significant strategic arsenal isn't enough to rationally protect them from invasion.
The issue I always have when I see Zeihan talk about Russia is that he'll talk about his predictions in concrete terms of 100% certainty, as if they've already happened. Which causes me to recoil because obviously no one has any real certainty about what an aspect of Russia might be in 5 or 10 years time. Then it's quite hard to take anything he says seriously.
That's the life of a think tank boffin you are seeing. After all, he was literally paid and made by sitting in an office and having people pay him to be told the future. You don't make a good prophet/profit if you don't make it sound good to the people paying you.
Peter is also a salesman too , $$$ . Very smart , but is 100% theory of his correctness is questionable. It's called a think tank for a reason.
I watched some of Peter's stuff early in the war. I realized quickly it was sort of intellectual fast food. Lots of grand assertions, couched in rather absolutist terms, that often lacked a follow on argument or evidence to unpack how he came to that assertion. It sort of leaves you with little traction for criticism or even evaluation, for lack of more information. You are either forced to be overly charitable about his points, or kind of put them in the trivially true catagory. As a philosopher myself, I simply found that too frustrating to continue following and moved on to other sources of information. He might be right about a lot what he says, I am just interested in doing his homework for him.
Intellectual fast-food, is the correct assertion. It's food ; it nourishes but it's formulaic ; meant to excite the taste buds and it doesn't provide any subtlety. If you feed on it once it a while it's entertaining, but as an actual regimen to base your life on, it's toxic.
Intellectual fast food seems to be the right interpretation. He presents a gamifeid version of reality that attracts more people into the subject. This on its own isnt necessarily a bad thing but it can be when people confuse this gamefied version with actual reality. There is an awful lot missing in his analysis and we should take his assertions/predictions with healthy spoonfuls of salt.
@cenc cenc What other sources of information have you moved onto and prefer?
Buy the books if you want the data
@@yellowledbutter for this subject of geopolitics surrounding Russias invasion of Ukraine it is difficult to find. The reason is the situation is very dynamic. First you need to answer what do you want to know. What led up to this? What is happening now? What will happen in the next couple months to a year? Five years out? Anyone discussing the latter is purely guessing. What's happening now with the war, sending weapons, etc there are lots of good sources, e.g. Denys and Perun. For historical context you can listen to Timothy Snyder's 2022 Yale lecture series or the Mearsheimer talks. For what will happen in the next weeks to a year with the western response I think DW panel discussions are good. And the IWM Vienna series is a good source with lots of interesting background.
My opinion is that Peter has a global strategy consulting company, so creating a consumable opinion is his business. His customers are corporations that hire him as one or the inputs for their own strategy teams, the books and appearances are marketing.
Yes Peter has a Powerpoint slide for any geopolitical event.
Exactly, he is the current Bagdad bob.
@@joshuamitchell1733 lol
Anyone, so-called expert or otherwise, who uses such hyperbole and language of inevitability, immediately elicits in me skepticism that he actually knows what he’s talking about.
This was fascinating. I've watched a few of Peter's videos and am half way through his latest book. It would be interesting to have Peter on the show to justify some of his theories!
I mean... it's a skill isn't it? If it's such bullshit and a con why don't you do it were it so easy?
He's not exactly wrong. He just hyperbolizes and generalizes to not get into too much detail and makes assumptions which are indeed to some extent "judgements" of situations rather than objective truth.
But why would there be objective truth in hyperbolic statements or hypotheticals anyways?
It's a show, but it's not complete bullshit.@@AcademiaCondorcet
I always feel like Peter presents everything in such a black and white manner, instead of shades of grey. Like his confidence in the collapse of China due to population collapse. It may be his most probable assessment. However its not beyond the relms of possibility that robotics, automation and AI could more than mitigate population decline.
He also doesn't take into account what China calls the "black children" those born outside the 1child policy, over 20 million people, that's a lot.
I think his analysis is not just based on their inability to produce. Even if China could suddenly make technological leaps to offset that, I’m not sure what AI will be able to do on the decline of consumption demand and lack of capital. Cheap boomer capital is what made this all possible. I think Peter is pointing to what will happen when capital is so much more expensive.
Can't pronounce the word "nuclear." I have a problem with that no matter the sales pitch.
I don't think that Peter's point is that China would not be more productive going forward. I think his point is that mass retirement, smaller and smaller demographics of younger people paying taxes for retirees will put too much of a pressure on government finances (healthcare, less tax revenue, pensions) to be able to handle it. That's what I understand as nation collapse due to population collapse.
You do realize that those robots don't consume or pay taxes right? The only solution automation solves is production costs. But it doesn't replace manpower if the problem is also affecting consumption and tax revenue. You can replace every factory worker in China with a robot and the end result is those replaced workers now can't consume or pay taxes. The manufacturer will be making money but the Chinese workers that Xi supposedly is pulling out of poverty will plummet right back to poverty.
I am new here and I appreciate the mild skepticism of some of Zeihan's (occasionally hyperbolic) assertions. My defense of Zeihan's body of work is that regardless of your view on the specifics (which sometimes matter very much) of an international situation, Zeihan offers a coherent fact based construct on demographics, trade and energy which I find unmatched by anyone. This construct then offers a lens which can be used to assess international policy trends and decisions. Zeihan's construct offers a valuable tool for consideration of what (broadly/globally) might come next although Zeihan himself admits that only a very general timeline is possible and I agree with your implication that Putin's (and Putin's advisers/associates) mindset cannot (should not?) be assumed by analysis using the general construct.
Quite the salesman, too. Everybody needs a construct.
@@11235but I think that is the all the basis of geopolitical analysis,meaning there is some sort of Demographic/Geographic determinism which allows you to predict future behavior.
So by picking through your flowery vocabulary, it is to my understanding you're saying that
Peter Zeihan knows something about everything, but at the end of the day his conclusions are
purely guesswork, hindered by not knowing very aspect of the topic fully.
But if we knew the answers would we be asking the questions?
If we value the quality of our received answers to our questions, would we be asking
the truly enlightened or a soothsayer?
@@Gary-Seven-and-Isis-in-1968 "Flowery" language aside, Zeihan does a good job providing explanations for 1. Why Ukraine is happening 2. Why it's happening now 3. Why NATO is supporting Ukraine so vigorously 4. Why the sanctions are aimed as they are and 5. What the implications are for an interdependent globe when the #1 export supplier of so many essential raw materials is no longer filling that role. Those are pretty good topics of interest for government and industrial customers and Zeihan then sells his services to identify the specifics. Zeihan's stuff is NOT a perfect predictor of outcomes and personalities do matter so region and country specific subject matter experts are always going to be relevant to a given situation. My point here is both types of analysis are necessary and useful.
George Friedmann offers similar analyses, also presented in style. His 2009 book "The Next 100 Years" is quite prescient... I scoffed at his predictions for about now regarding Russia and hypersonics, but no longer.
That’s the politest way I’ve ever heard someone say “nah, mate, not good enough!”
Thanks for putting words of many of the suspicions I’ve had about ZH. Next it would be fun to hear someone who knows about China do the same.
I was tempted to do other topics, but this was already more than enough for now!
@@VladVexlerChat I'm happy you did this at least - seems like the youtube algorithm has recommended you and ZH to many of us who are interested in politics, history and demographics :)
In PZ's defense. He ISN'T a Russian/Putin expert, especially on his mindset and worldview. He covers every single country, including their demography, economics, political leanings, geography, alliances, trade partners and Import export strengths, Military defense, and their neighbors among other factors..
He does this with EVERY country around the world mind you ( takes a second to learn that) .. Then cross references that with every country they are in contact with now, will be in contact with soon (as countries are emerging), and may not being in contact with if globalization trends continues to decline...
After that analyses of EVERY country of the world, tries to shape a picture of how EVERY country in the world will effect other countries, and how the entire world may change. That's quite a task in it self, welcome to geopolitics. So no, He's not going to understand the psychological worldview of every single leader, as most experts might understand only a handful of leaders anyway.
@@xfactorb25222 I don't think we disagree. Much of my problem with PZ is that he has a tendency to make very definitive statements about things that are either very fluid or very open to interpretations.
It might simply be that he's American and they often speak in a much more direct way than the rest of the world, even when it comes to subject where I think you should be more careful.
It's a complicated world, and we can't be experts on all subjects - but I love it when people try to look at the bigger picture, so no disrespect to PZ.
@@Nygaard2 LOL. Damn, I can't really argue you with the American point.I may have came across some way too, not intentionally. But no, you're not alone, a lot of people think he's arrogant. I don't think he intends to come across that way.
He's been around for quite awhile, pretty spooky accurate a lot of times. He just caught on here lately and I know he said he did 190 speaking events last year. So, I think he almost knows the questions coming and just fires off.
If you like the psychology behind Putin and Russia, or at least a different ( kind of blunt) take then you may usually hear, I will give a recommendation if you don't mind.
It's a long podcast, but timestamped if needed. He's one of my favorites. Stephen Kotkin.The host is of Russian descent too, so it makes it... different? ( not sure of the right word there) take care.
ua-cam.com/video/2a7CDKqWcZ0/v-deo.html
Thanks, Vlad
Russia's territorial security relies on their nuclear weapons. Zeihan is arguing that Russia needs take over swathes of NATO territory to be safe but that is impossible with conventional warfare. So if their security relies on nuclear weapons then this invasion is now pointless in achieving Russian security.
I have a couple of issues with this territorially based analysis of Russian security, which treats international relations as if we were all engaged in a giant game of Risk:
1. Russia has tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, which render it essentially immune to invasion
2. If Russia wants a cheap and effective solution to what it imagines to be a security crisis on its western border, I proffer a trivial solution: become a functioning democracy, with free and fair elections and a free press. Because, democracies do not attack other democracies.
In reality of course, I doubt there are any Kremlin strategists who genuinely fear any foreign incursion, rather as Vlad explains the calculus is all about defending Putin and his kleptocracy from internal threats, which would be vastly exacerbated by the example of a free and progressive Ukraine on its border.
Well put, and an essential example of a realm of consideration which Zeihan's methods are incapable of grappling with. Russia's "insecurity" is the regime's insecurity, magnified through the twin lenses of autocratic fears of democratization and the Russian history of supporting a strong central state through the manufacture of external threats and territorial expansion.
There is a vast difference between "Here's how I can use my framework to explain the current reality" and establishing a causal link, especially when any human motivation outside of that framework is essentially hand-waved.
This is a fantastic crossover that I wasn't expecting this morning. First of all I wanted to say that Peter Zeihan definitely comes from the category of analysts that would agree that saying a 15% chance of nuclear conflict never sold any books. He has correctly identified that selling certainty in an uncertain world is his job, so he frequently overstates and also says things with much more confidence than they necessarily warrant. At the start of the video you said that there wasn't a foundational idea that could be attacked behind Zeihan's ideology, but there is. He is very much a Geographic Determinist, and his arguments logically follow from that framework. I tend to view Geographic Determinism as a good 80% rule, where it can help you get 80% of the picture but the rest needs to be filled in by the hands of people. I think your point about regime security vs national security is absolutely warranted, but I feel like Peter is making a much more broad point about the geographic conditions necessary for anyone in the Kremlin to feel either the nation of the government is secure.
With Peter confidence is not problem, but lack thereof. Hence all the theatrics and consultant speak.
Agree with you on the geographic determinism point. Peter seems to have a fondness for geography, and a blind spot there in it's emphasis lacking other factors. But that's ok. Once you KNOW this, the rest of his work is quite valuable.
@@vp4744 When you are being paid to give a prescriptive solution the last thing a client wants to hear is "well I am pretty sure this, but that is also likely."
@@ferrariguy8278 Yeah, his work really has helped me wrap my head around the energy sector in particular as a layperson. I just think that it is something that Vlad might want to look into because he went after Mearsheimer for an overreliance on an intellectual framework, and in the video he seemed unaware of the fact that Peter is also speaking "as a proponent of" a certain framework.
@@peterranney9488 The last thing an UA-cam audience needs is a snake oil salesman.
There's a book called "Nothing to Envy" about North Korea's regime. I felt like reading it gave me a head's up on how Putin thinks. He basically can not afford to have a neighbor who is 'worth envying' because that will cause his people to go "THEY have ABC so why don't WE have ABC?". And when a populace does that, suddenly a regime becomes accountable and Putin can't have that.
Taiwan is similar for China.
@@Chibling Ehhhhh not so much. If you go to Taipei (I've been), MOST of the tourists are mainlanders, to the point of annoyance. Same with south Korea. Jeju island's main tourists were Chinese until the pandemic.
Taiwan to me is more about...destroying a kind of 'multiverse' alternative. Like destroying the "idea" that a separatist regime even 'made it'.
@@futureshocked Yes, and a democratic one at that. The CCP wants people to think their "economic miracle" was entirely their doing and wouldn't be possible without them.
Go back and listen to this Peter I wanna say probably early March and he talks totally different he is a gentleman who I think we in the west say he ride the wave.
You do realize that Zeihan is a demographics and logistics expert. He deals with logistics of people and things and their effect on the economy. He gets to sell books and gain fees for consulting if he can make things sound worse than what they are, but his thoughts would not sell if the numbers weren't correct. He is not a political expert or a military expert. He is an expert in logistics and demographics and how it relates to economies of scale and how they interact with each other. You shouldn't think less of the fish because he can't ride a bicycle. Just as the fish can swim, Zeihan can easily create hypotheticals which will be alarmist to sell books. As for your Russian experts, they are a joke as Russian experts as Zeihan would be if he was being seen as a Russian expert.
Vlad, you are a Russian expert in my view. I am an analyst. by trade, who can't help analysing the hell out of everything. A bit of digging into Peter Zeihan, when I first encountered him, revealed a Doomsayer (for all outside the US). He takes basic race characteristics, brings in some well-made actual data points, chucks in some demographic stats and then makes huge leaps towards whatever torrid end-point he decides for that country/civilisation. I do quite like him and he is bright, even if a bit sensational and he has great backgrounds!!!
To me, he seems to do the kind of systemic analysis, consulting firms do, when they are called to deal with a corporate crisis: Their analysis has often some value but more often ignores details and hidden factors which did not enter the model.
Whilst too many details often obscure the bigger picture, they can be crucial. The difficulty is to find the linear approximation whilst not ignoring the non-linear factors.
@@mina_en_suiza Yup, I can see, in Peter, the entry of the great geopolitical analyst, from the Consultancy firm, speaking with TOTAL conviction on the extreme extrapolation of a couple of data points to some conclusion without any thought that the people involved may see what's happening and change course. Peter's pop and Vlad is content.
@@stevemaxwell5559 That was very nicely put.
When Joe asks if the Russians are thinking about their demographic problems, Peter said "I think that's what's driving them". Not an awesome answer but it is still an answer.
And he's wrong there BUT Zeihan is right in that Russia's demographics are going to collapse in the future.
Vlad, this was superb, his certainty does seem to be based on a world that is just big geopolitical chess pieces that just can’t account for uncertainty people bring to the table. When he talks about the future of the US that uncertainty seems to be dismissed even more. I hope all the work you seem to have been doing recently isn’t taking its toll ❤
Slava Ukraini!
Apparently, Peter never owned a "sh*t happens" T-shirt.
I'm a big fan of Zeihan, but understand that one person is not going to be right on everything (especially when future events are utterly unpredictable). I really appreciate your analysis of his statements on Russia, pro and con. You're always thoughtful, generous, and more interested than substance over rhetorical bomb-throwing. t's crucial to listen to many intelligent voices on geopolitics, and you continue to teach me a lot about Russia. Keep up the remarkable work, Vlad!
So people pay this guy to be wrong. Amazing.
@@damiangilz I take it basic reading is hard for you.
@@thecustodian1023 super hard. Need help.
@@damiangilz *When faced with something online you don't understand.*
1: Left click and highlight the word/words you don't understand.
2: Right-click over the highlighted area and select, "Search For"
3: Start reading the various links you are presented with.
4: Pace yourself. Finding out you may in fact be as uninformed/stupid as others keep saying you are can be hard to work through. 😉
@@damiangilz He gets things right, he was one of the few to call out China fearmongering, pointing out the clearly botched demography at a time when everyone was fearing the dragon.
Zeihan is a "cartoonification" of true, wise analysis. But he talks with the incredible assurance of a salesman who could literally sell freezers to Eskimos.
An observation on language styles and content... As a science educator, I strive for clarity and precision of language because my material is quite complex. This allows students to focus on content, not delivery.
Peter Zeihan uses hyperbolic language that oversimplifies complex issues to make bold conclusions and predictions. His audience is focused on his delivery of generalized content and grand proclamations.
Having listened intently to your UA-cam videos, I find your content to be informative and thought-provoking… and delivered in a quite complex, layered language. I am not sure if this is how you speak naturally, or if it is consistent with the language of philosophical thought. I often turn on closed caption with your videos to make sure I get correct 1) the Russian names (though closed caption often fails) and 2) the intent of your sentences. Every sentence for me is a slow walk through both content and delivery, and I frequently rewatch segments to better interpret your message correctly.
This is not a criticism nor request for change… just an observation on differences in delivery styles.
Thanks 🙏 again for this interesting and well informed discussion of the current political situation and historical background. You always get me thinking and improve my understanding of Russia 🇷🇺 - thank you!
I have been recently wondering why so many Russians and supporters of Russia vehemently deny that Russia has ever engaged in imperialism or hate that label “imperialism/ colonialism” when used in regards to the Russian empire/ Soviet Union…. Why do they think only the “West” or “Western countries” have expanded their influence/ power against the will of the inhabitants of other countries? And Russia/ Soviet Union didn’t? To be clear, I am against Imperialism/ Colonialism, but I don’t think “only the West/ Western countries” engaged in this type of selfish and aggressive expansion of power of territory which shouldn’t be ours… would be very interested if you could do something about this topic…
Imperialism always assumes that the own expansion is right and good for humanity, while rivals are evil and detrimental (allies might be excused from this for as long as they're useful)
Thank you! I hope to talk about the Russian imperialist psychology. In the West it is anti imperialism that so often leads people to defend Russian imperialism. The mechanism is cultural narcissism, above all a kind of America-centrism.
Peter is a Geography and Demographic generalist not a specialist. His frame work is useful for understanding where we are and how we got here, but you do need specialists to help understand things futher.
Your commentary from 1:45 is so helpful! As I'm pretty new to internet texting, I recognize this pathological reaction in myself. And I almost always regret it... after I've sent a text that is grounded only in my personal fears and insecurities. Learning to breath deeply and to take time to develop a response which truly reflects all of my values is very important.
One of my main disputes about this take against Peter is that generally his focus is on economics and he only dabbles in the political space everyone has hyper-focused on his China and Russia analysis because of current politics but a lot of what he talks about is about agriculture and sub-Saharan Africa southeast Asia South America Industrial production in regards to changing investment landscapes but ever since the Ukraine war everyone wants to hear his take on something that takes up very little of his original analysis and partly to Peter's fault since he's been getting a lot of traffic on Russia in the stuff he talks about in regards to Russia he's been producing more and more material that inflates the exact same amount of study that he put into it long before the war he really hasn't done too much research since then he's just been reiterating what he had already talked about
A Vlad Vexler Video Guide:
Pause Video > Settings > Playback Speed > 2x > Resume Video
Love you Vlad, just not your speaking pace.
SN: I like Peter Zeihan. He's a very smart man and I own one of his books, but sometimes I think he makes guesses on subjects he doesn't have adequate knowledge of instead of just saying he doesn't know. It's a bit of a grift, albeit unintentional. Rogan pressed him at the end of that episode and he left rather abruptly. You could sense he was uncomfortable. That said, I do think he's correct about most of the topics he discusses.
Ha ha !
Brilliant, as usual. Thank you Vlad
Thank you!
Peter Z is a sensationalist.
I’ve watched Peter Z for a while. His earlier stuff was much more focused on and based on a handful of determinant factors, most especially demographics. He would look at that data, project into the future, and put a stake in the ground and say country X will have a very hard time getting too far away from this reality. There was a usefulness to it, and an intellectual honesty, when taking about broad global trends. As you’ve pointed out here Vlad, he is bringing in far more factors here, on something very specific, and saying the future will definitely look like this. There is a lack of rigour in the multitude of individual factors he talks about now regarding Russia as compared to when he talked about a handful of factors and broad trends.
I still find him useful in that he highlights individual factors to be considered and what they mean. Regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine, he is trying to have a nuanced conversation and the strengths he does bring are getting lost in the noise he is adding.
As always I love your insight and your consistently high standards of intellectual honest and rigour aimed at understanding the world and making it a better place.
27:15: "might have peter on the channel"
YES PLEASE!!!
I applaud your relative patience with him. When I watched this interview I struggled with emotional triggers of essentially having met several "Peters" in my life. There's an element of using truth to tell a lie, or, coming to a misguided conclusion based on a sort of controlled grandiosity. That you can pass on misinformation, whether intended or not, if you speak quickly, move on to another point just as quickly, name drop an be articulate... you are given the credibility by someone like Joe, who failed to challenge him on too many occasions. What he does is a "Jedi mind trick" in a sense. I personally found his conclusions on renewable energy and EVs to be simply incorrect. That he's "the only green that does the math". Then proceeds on with no mathematical or logistical data points to support his statements. Excuse my language, but he set off my Bullshit detector too many times for me not to be suspicious of his arguments. There are clearly some cognitive biases, possibly financial interests, attached to those semi-falsehoods that are at play which corrupt his ability be reasonably accurate. Unfortunately all while being very good at SOUNDING reasonable and therefore accurate. Now I don't know if this is intentional or genuinely misguided. Probably both. There seems to be a level of "drinking his own Koolaid". Anyway, he does not deserve the platform he currently enjoys of being considered credible council. I'd probably go as far as call him a charlatan. A "geopolitical analyst" that cannot pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly is a major red flag for me ;)
Very interesting analysis and perspective. You got my subscription.
I do think he’s essentially right that the resource demands of trying to scale renewables to the whole world are beyond our current capabilities
O333B - I too was reminded of Jim Jones while watching/listening to him; though my sense is that he's probably got a really secure bunker set up there on some mountain near Denver and may not be interested in gathering a bunch of acolytes.
Vlad, would never have noticed the rash if you didn’t call attention to it, you have such great eye contact with the camera, my focus is always on your eyes and facial expression. Hope you are feeling well enough, as always thank you for your insights.
Thank you and love!
@@VladVexlerChat But you do have the kindest eyes.
I started watching Peter about a year ago. Initially, I was impressed with his analysis and conclusions. However, the more I listened to him to more I recognized the outlandishness of some of the things he was saying. I eventually came to the conclusion that he reminded me of someone that use to travel from town to town selling the latest and greatest thing. Then I transitioned to understand that he is a "doomsayer" who has been saying these things for a very long time and it is only recently that the narrative he is selling has come into vogue. I take what I hear from him these days with a grain of salt.
He says what some people are keen to hear, and so they lap it up.
@@matttheyak He's a "Policy" Tony Robbins
Exactly, that's why he's on Rogan show
You should take what everyone has to say with salt, including Vlad
I am so glad you are doing this type of analysis. Peter Zeihan speaks in a very authoritative way and his videos show up on UA-cam for people interested in topics he covers. Perspective checking and fact checking is very important. I caught him on a few inaccuracies of fact but I am no expert. So I might give some of his assertions more credence than they deserve. He does make some valid points which might be new ideas to many of his listeners. I would even recommend his videos to friends who need a deeper dive. His strength is really in the underlying economic and demographic analysis. However, he is way too certain in many of his predictions - humans react to adversity and can change and you predictions go out the window. But his authoritative certainty in outcomes is the real product he is selling.
not really, he does say that hes wrong when hes wrong quite readily
Peter takes geography and demographic trends and pushes them to their further logical extensions. If he knows something about the geography and demographics of Russia (or China or Mexico, or the U.S.) then he knows where this is going. The question is will these trends continue in a linear --and predictable--way or will artifacts (and surprises) confound them? I think Vlad makes the case that Peter's certitude ignores intervening factors.
Demographics is real hard science, far more reliable than Economy. It can give good predictions. Natality in Russia (and in Ukraine) has fallen after collapse of USSR. Putin spoke about that and also started several programs to improve Russia's natality, but those failed.
While demography and geography are very important one can not use them in such monocausal manner. That's just intellectually unsound. I use another example: psychologists, social psychology, microbiologist, geneticists, neurologists, anthropologists, evolutionary biologist might all come up with a different explanation for the same behavior - and some times these explanation are outright contrary. In spite each being in fact based on real hard science, measurable data, sound methodology.
An expert needs awareness of the possibility that there may be other valid explanations for any given observation or circumstance. And multiple factors - including outside the experts expertise and knowledge - interacting. Returning to demography and geography - these two are important factors but they are not the one-and-all explanation for social and political make-up of a society and the political decision the leadership of a country derives from it. There a whole host of other factors that shape the believes and actions (from history to personal psychological make-up of individual leaders).
I kind of see the whole "extinction of nations X, Y & Z as a people" as a dramatic 150% exaggeration to make a legitimate point. Ageing population means an unbalanced ratio of young people to retirees which means you need the young men to keep the "lights on" and can't throw them into a high loss of life war.
@@scottn2046 I don't see it as too far of a stretch otherwise Japan wouldn't be acting so desperate. Nobody is seeing this as dogma but his point is if Japan is having stark economic realities of an ageing population I think other countries with a low skilled work force would act even more desperate. Extinction of nations is not new and this era of piece has made people arrogant in order of nation states as we see them today. Many academic active geopoliticals argue for extinction of states like Bosnia if Balkan countries continue to stagnate.
Comments on your critique of Peter Zeihan
I have read several of Peter Zeihan's books, and have reviewed his work in the context of Russia for at least the last 11 months. As a base line for this discussion it is important to note:
- Zeihan is not a Russian Expert - and has never claimed to be.
- He is openly influenced by demographics more than any other field
- His predictions are based on large macro trends (which in the abstract have limited historical precedents).
- On the basis of Demographics and Macroeconomics he predicted a 2022 war in Ukraine in one of his early books (circa 2015)
Peter Zeihan is very clear on his area of expertise. His theories are fundamentally influenced by macro-trends on key inputs to economic prosperity. These inputs include:
- Age profile of populations
- Access to cheap reliable energy
- Presence of Navigable rivers
- Effective administration
- Engagement with immigration (he sees a clear advantage in open societies - or immigrant cultures)
- Strong Democratic systems with a balance of regulation and investment.
His predictions for Russia are only part of a more global analysis which focus on the network of global supply chains that underpin technological growth and economic prosperity in the wake of the second world war. . He comments frequently on the Bretton Woods agreement and is very clear on the effect that free trade has had in shaping global societies. (in particular those with access to blue water ports). He recognises the growth benefits of globally integrated supply chains, but also notes the fragility when those same networks are confronted with politically motivated fragmentation.
Peter's syncretic approach does fall short when making deductions that draw on societal effects. He openly states that he cannot account for large social movements, except to highlight the influence that age demographics have on the prevalence of unrest, or the preference for stability over reform. He does make reference to the 'general political character' of different societies and often uses that as a basis for more specific prediction about lines of fragmentation (China's three zones are a good example of this).
Zeihan describes the Russian foreign policy mindset in terms that reflect a 19th century view of geopolitics: in effect… Russia wants to control avenues of approach, secure food, fuel and water, influence neighbours through control of their markets and internal narratives. Russia needs to ensure economic freedom through access to blue water ports for both military and merchant purposes. Zeihan doesn't delve in to the individual motivations of specific leaders, but does recognise the overarching trend for authoritarian governments to prioritise survival of the regime over all else.
The key difference between Peter's work and yours Vlad - is the depth to which you focus on Putin's individual motivations and the social contract that his regime has with the people of Russia. Peter doesn’t focus on that in anyway… instead he views Russia as semi-homogenous society with declining economic prosperity, declining birth rates, declining standards of education and crucially - a very insular polity with a strong survival instinct. Peter makes several comparisons to China who he views through a similar lens.
My view is that both of your analytical approaches are complimentary: With the macroeconomics (Peter's work) setting the priorities and options open to Putin, while the actual policy decisions are always going to be based on more proximal dialogues and Putin's own world view (clearly your bailiwick).
I have been following both of your work for the last 11 months and see no clear conflict on your individual theses. My one criticism of Peter Zeihan's work is that he discounts the resilience of human societies when confronted with instability. Yes - the demographic changes we are facing are not frequently observed in our recorded history. Examples of large scale depopulation that come to mind include the black plague and maybe the bronze age collapse. However a more nuanced view of demographics would need to accept the deeper work of the Club of Rome (1972) which highlighted a general trend toward lower population growth in the mid-21st century - and more specifically the trends that follow the inflection point in any population. This point arrives not simply as the result of limited resources - but also the general influence of education standards, life expectancy, automation and specialisation. My own preference is to combine many of his observations with those of E.F Schumacher - noting that a smaller society is not simply a scaled down version of what we have now - but a different beast all together. In this context 'different' doesn’t imply worse.
Zeihan does use annoying amounts hyperbole and generalisation - which often elicits a similar reaction to Rogan in this interview. Reading his work I am often frustrated by the need to look deeper into his few societal observations, but his demographics are generally correct. And while he is cautious enough to rarely drift into policy recommendations, his confidence in his method is clearly evident. When viewing his work I choose to accept his predictions as a general indication of pivot points (within 5 to 10 year windows) … where inaccuracies are often attributable to divergence from 'All things being equal'.
An Epistemology expert. NICELY done =)
Very subtle and well presented; calling Peter an idiot without calling Peter an idiot.
He IS an idiot.
One of my biggest fears in writing is making an argument that is true, but besides the point. The whole "Russia needs geographic barriers" argument struggles to climb out of that trap. Doubly so because it's a very aesthetically beautiful argument. You can tie it all the way back to concepts of the world island and "hard data" like demographics and physical geography. If only relevance coincided with aesthetics. :_C
Nicely put.
Peter knows who pays his bills and makes sure his vision of their future is pleasant.
Idk, he's pretty clear on the challenges he sees facing US industry
@@colinhobbs7265 and the view that only the USA will master those. The rest of the world is doomed.
@@colinhobbs7265 You can make ample money by knowing in advance what's going to tank. Short selling and borrowing. Bet they're just as delighted to hear that. Growth is slow, measured; crashes can be big and abrupt.
Hi dear Vlad, I really enjoyed this reaction video, I hope you’ll do it again.
You are very generous with giving him “passes”, and I try my best to assess my thinking and I do see how it can be beneficial to “give someone passes”, and let the conversation move on without interrupting and in that way destroy any chances to understand the message (generally speaking)
I appreciate how you pause the video, quickly points out factual mistakes, correct them and then let him speak again.
I wish I was as patient as you’re, and I’m taking the opportunity to learn and I take notes 📝
I hope all is well with you and that you’re enjoying your weekend.
With kindness and respect, Grace 🤍🕯️🙏
I think the important thing about Ziehan’s performance on Rogan is that it challenges the anti-Ukrainian dialogue from the Russian propaganda being spewed by Fox News, OAN and Newsmax. At least it explains the perspective of NATO.
You are right , putler thought that Ukraine is a threat to his life . And it is . Ukraine will put the end to his miserable life .
Would have not noticed rash if not mentioned, No need to mention it, but I hope and wish you get well and feel better anyway.
Thank you! Some people would be worried so me mentions!
With Vlad about to subject Zeihan's writings to a midrash, would've been rash not to reassure sensitive listeners.
-Enjoyed the dramatic intro, and glad it was not troubling you, Vlad: hope you remain constantly the beneficiary of your kind, loving spirit.
Omg thank you Vlad! Iv watched Zeihan for a couple years and find his ideas quite interesting. But there isn’t much out there that I can find that directly combats him bc He’s such a generalist. Seems to me that most people that have what’s necessary to deliver a contrasting view are experts in their specific area of academia and not much else. So I was actually seriously thinking two or three days ago that I would really love to hear some of your thoughts in his worldview.
Hi Vlad, may I kindly suggest a collaboration partner?
The suggestion would be the Australian Ytuber "Perun". He makes videos that look at deference industry, logistics, doctrines, mostly connected to the Ukraine conflict (because his first "serious" video* he made, he made about i)t and so on. .Quite excellent video, might I add. This sounds maybe strange, but I think the 2 could have great potential to complement each other.
Also I think that Perun does understand the importance of Philosophy and history and the importance to understand mind sets.
So I think he would welcome to work with you.
*his used to make video guides for games, but with the invasion he made a video "All Bling, no Basics" to explain why Russia could fail the way it did and sealed his fate.
Just stumbled upon this video. Thank you, Vlad, you have a critical way of shredding apart all of Zeihan's oversimplified interpretations of history. If I listen to his videos, it astonishes me how certain he is about politics and how he totally excludes politicians from most of his hypothetical scenarios. In a very centralised country like Russia, such a way of seeing politics leaves out most of the reasons that cause the events
One thing to note was that a little before the clip presented here starts, Zeihan talks about some similar ground work to what Vlad has pointed out. He mentions how the nuclear rhetoric has become less fierce in the last few months as Putin realized that he was being well tracked by US intelligence, and also points out that regime change in Russia would be the only provocation of note that might lead to a nuclear catastrophe, citing the possibility of a victorious Ukraine attempting to invade pre-war Russian borders, as a potential provocation. Still, he indeed does say some things that don't seem to line up well with Vlad's analysis, or that of others.