The 'West' is a collection of countries, not an organisation or federal block each country chooses its own path and supports or not supports each other. The so called west is an increasing group of countries who have a setlled legal system working within a solid democratic system who work with international norms.
@@konjicgrbonjic3131 Another conspiracy theorists? If you're not already, move to Russia. The vast majority of it's population (the one's that haven't left) believe the same malarkey that it sounds like you do. So, you're just another part of the problem in the world.
The West exists for the overwhelming part out of two blocks: the USA (+ Canada, as its appendix) and the EU (+ Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein as its appendix).
@@dirkgonthier101 even Japan is Western and South Korea pretty much also. The western world or above all the democratic world has been increasing strongly till this very day
@@milerale5286 In modern time? Only if they are attacked first or the country is harboring terrorists causing issues on the world stage. The US and Britain show great restraint considering the BS that Iran, North Korea, Russian and now China are doing to destabilize the free world.
China is a good example, but I suspect you mean Russia. In all fairness to Afghanistan (and Iraq), anyone harboring Bin Laden on 9/12 was either going to get out of the way or be steamrollered. Iraq had previously used chemical weapons on their own people, and was trying very hard to convince their neighbors (Iran) that they still had them. On 9/12 it was too late to try and convince the USA that they didn't, so Iraq became a "while we're at it". We could have left the dictator in Iraq and saved ourselves a lot of blood and treasure, but hindsight is always 20/20. The real moral of that story is "don't attack the USA and allies".
Mistakes were made. Best intentions sometimes backfire. Going forward NATO needs to carefully weigh the cost of security. Cheap Chinese products and cheap Russian gas as it turns out carry a hidden cost that could very well undermine everything, almost as if it was planned for.
I agree with most of what Mr. Furedi says in terms of how we got here; however, I think he didn't give sufficient weight to putin's overt actions to undermine the process of Russia finding its place in the modern world. One could reasonably argue that Russia culturally, socially and geopolitically simply is not yet ready to participate at the level that most modern countries are operating at in 2022. The mistake here, though, is that one would be assessing and entire country based on the actions of its dictator and the corrupt government that he is responsible for installing. We simply cannot know if Russia is capable of joining the modern world. putin's war will likely result in a reset for Russia. It may get another chance to try, but it is more likely that putin will be replaced with putin 2.0
More than likely, in its’ entire history Russia has only experienced at best 10 years of democracy from the early 90’s to the early 2000’s and even then it was like the Wild West.
I totally agree with you. As long as hard liners with Soviet Empire mentality are still alive it isn't possible to integrate Russia to the modern world although majority of the people specially the younger generations are hungry for change in the Kremlin.
This is not necessarily true. According to Yevgenia Albats, (a veteran Russian journalist with very good sources) even The most hawkish members of Putin's security Council were against this war, including extremely surprisingly! Nikolai Patrushev. Apparently also according to Medusa (The Russian liberal newspaper which also has great sources) most of Putin's cabinet were kept in the dark and were absolutely horrified when the "special military operation" was announced. It's also important to note that the likes of Dugin and Girkin/Strelkov are part of a tiny but extremely vocal minority in Russia. A majority of the population either couldn't care less or are bitterly opposed to the war. Putin's regime is extremely personalistic, if he goes so too does the regime. To me it's all about who can organize better, and it's likely not the militaristic wing.
@@liamrichardson8787 not to mention that if (when) Russia looses it will loose its imperial space (Ukraine solidly in the western block, central Asia will fall into the Chinese sphere, the caucasus into Turkish or European depending on country, Belarus is more likely to overthrow Lukashenka and fall into the European sphere) Russia itself will have suffered such a big fall of status that can only choose between chinese vassalage (as now the obvious leader of the anti US hegemony block) or reapproaching itself with the west to excape this Chinese orbit.
@@mendesjosr4438 Very true! The real test will be which way Russia decides to move. Before the war a Highly respected General called Leonid Ivashov (not a dove by any means) accused Vladimir Putin of treason and declared that NATO was "in check" and that the real problem was China. Ivashov's opinions are I suspect shared within the Russian army. China and Russia have never really been allies historically. There is also the problem of population. China has a large population and Russia's is declining. About 75% of the Russian population lives to the west of the Ural mountains leaving Siberia sparsely populated, difficult to defend and full of natural resources which China would love to have. Given Ivashov's thinking and the potential that China could begin to seriously consider making it's own claims on historical territory in say East Manchuria, I think it highly likely that the next Russian government may have to have a rapprochement with the west. As for Lukashenko his goose is cooked. His people hate him and have zero desire to be absorbed into Russia. When Putin goes so to does he.
No our failure was allowing 2 Russian secret service agents rocking around London on a jolly and watching an Arsenal match and the pouring polonium nuclear material into Litvinekos cup of tea. Right there and then I knew that you couldn’t let that slide. And they did. And absolute F**king joke. Russian oligarchs just keep infesting London further and further 🤦
Churchill wanted to incorporate the defeated German army into the allied forces and march on Russia at the end of WW2. Everyone thought he was crazy then but looking back now, it was a brilliant idea.
I may not agree with Churchill on everything, but *boy howdy* are he and I of one mind when it comes to the question of Russia. We ought to have kept marching.
Hasn't a major problem largely been that Russia is just too big? In an era where Empires in the traditional sense of the word were largely dismantled nearly 2 generations ago, Russia still thinks like an Empire, and it has a leader who moved back to a position of 'Must beat the West' that was endemic in the USSR he grew up in, but the problem is Russia just isn't anywhere near as powerful as the USSR was so it's a lopsided fight.
@00 00 You seem to be jumping a few steps ahead of me here, I'm not suggesting that at all, China & India are/will be doing that as China's already ascendant in the region & India is coming up, meanwhile Russia's heading the other way only hastened by it's actions this year.
I wouldn't say the problem was that Russia was too big. Socially it is half the size of the US, and the US isn't all that populous on the world stage. True, Russia had (and has) a huge amount of land, but most of it is close to depopulated. It is the sort of place that doesn't have enough people on their own to stand on the world stage beside the likes of the countries around it (that might want to eat it), so needs to cling to some more powerful place that they think can protect them. If Russia falls, most of it's east will not become independent states, they will simply become part of some other existing state that will eat them. If anything, most of the east is a liability for Russia, not an asset except for bragging rights on land mass. The problem with Russia is that the Soviet mentality in the leadership wasn't removed after Gorby. We in the 'west" thought that if we just sent in McDonald's and KFC that they would learn the benefits of capitalism and become part of the west. Instead it led to a whole lot of lawlessness, the rise of organized crime, random and continuous gang killings, the rise of oligarchs that bought up most of the previously state-owned assets, and and most importantly, it allowed KGB leaders like Putin and his friends to assert that the west had abandoned Russia to it's own devices (and we had, he spoke the truth), and now the people of Russia needed a strong leader like him to lead them to a better world. The same thing could have happened to Germany after WW II. But it didn't, because it lost the war with the rest of the world, and the people that won the war saw how it had come about as the result of the conditions set after Germany lost WW I. They were determined not to make the same mistake, and they strenuously vetted the attitude and credentials of all of the school teachers and the people they allowed into the government. The end result was Germany refuted it's previous nasty ways, and became a new country. That didn't happen to Russia. The same people, with the same ideas, stayed in charge, and tried (and are trying) to recreate a version of the Soviet times they remember. It's hard to see how the west could have done much better. Russia didn't loose a war, so there was no overt justification for England, France, and the US to partition the country and clean up the political situation there like it did in Germany. And even if they had wanted to, Russia still had nukes (and they almost certainly worked in those days), so it would have been dangerous to try. But what Russia really needed was something like the English Colonial Office to take them under their wing for 20 years, and teach them how a capitalist economy should work (no, greed and theft aren't it, despite current US teaching) and how a government of and FOR the people should really work. But that didn't happen, so here we are.
All that you say could easily be applied to the USA. It's behaviour through foreign policy is that of Empire, and attempt to impose rule by corporate and financial gain. After the ending of the USSR, the 'West' (which has become all too often a mere euphemism for Anglo-Americanism) had a window of opportunity to be of benefit to Russia, and Russia of benefit to Europe especially with all its natural resources. Instead, U.S. foreign policy was taken over by the self-named 'Neo-Cons' along with persistent Russo-phobia, and treated that country very badly indeed. See the opening of Naomi Klein's book 'Shock Doctrine' to understand the planned de-construction of the Russian economy for foreign corporate benefit. Not satisfied with this, there came next talk of breaking up the Russian Federation from Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard, beginning with states breaking away. A chapter was included in Foreign Affairs magazine. Henry Kissinger, by 1999, appeared to 'predict' a war in Ukraine happening in 2011 or just after. The 'Orange Revolution' had all the hallmarks of an extremist nationalist movement seeded with CIA encouragement. The rest is where we are now. Whatever the final outcome, the people of Ukraine will have lost everything, that is to say, an economy they can call their own, just as Iraqi people have lost theirs, to 'western' corporations. I rest my case at this point.
I'm confused....who ever said or purported that "the war will revitalize the West"? If anything, it's a net drain on the West a price being paid to address a very long-standing issue with Russia/USSR. Also, who ever said that anyone (other than Russia) was ever proactively trying to integrate Russia into the west, the western economy, etc.? I think everyone, even Russian "allies" have always kept them at arm's length, primarily because there has never been any substantial evidence that it's ever progressed in any meaningful way from 300 years ago. Still a wannabe superpower, still almost genetically given to self-destruction, a huge, unwarranted ego which is oddly built an inferiority complex. The thing is, that Russia could be a genuine Super Power, if it just got itself together politically and economically, but....again, it has always been prone to encouraging it's own self-destructive follies, some sort of tsar/serf mentality persists.
Furedi is a bit of a confusing person. He embraces Orban's "war on wokeness" which Putin and Orban stylize as "Satanism" and breakdown of cultural values.
I think they meant the West finding the value of its unity and the value of its own values. These things have been under attack (and Putin did its best to feed anti-democratic ideas, divisive leaders, moral relativisms, distrust in our governments, scientists and disgust amongst ourselves for the freedoms we enjoy)
@@veronicamaine3813 if you mean the deluded attempt to integrate Ruzzia through trade, I agree. If you mean some sort of Europe for Europeans nonsense, the Hungarians are paying the price of massive corruption and increasing isolation
This idea that Russia was excluded or disrespected ignores an important fact. Even when there seemed to be better relations, Russia continued to politically support Saddam Hussein, Assad, Mohommer Ghaddfi and other tyrants who were self declared enemies of the west. They supported Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. So, it was almost impossible to consider Russia as some kind of ally when they were still waist deep in the remaining Anti-west coalition. Moving forward, a post-Putin Russia will have to make a choice. Join with the west and share in and live with western values, or gravitate toward China and continue facing western hostility.
Spot on. Russians have started a war and defacto annexed a part of Moldova back in 1992. At the same time inhabitants of Moscow were reliant on humanitarian aid from Germany. So much for being "disrespected".
@@timbehrens9678 Exactly. Russia made no effort to get along. They just wanted to continue being feared. Hopefully when a new government takes over in Moscow they will see the error of their ways. Otherwise the can be Chinas where house and resource center. Their days of being respected as a super power are over.
Include Russia in NATO? This interviewee is out of touch. Russia is in the UN as a permanent member and has a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The purpose of the (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) and is charged with ensuring international peace and security, So it's laughable to me to consider there are things that would have made Russia play nice with it's neighbors as long as Putin is in charge.
Russia needs to be isolated & contained. Putin is on his way out and about the only thing we can be assured of is whoever replaces him will be just as bad it now worse, it’s the Russian way.
I don't think anyone has EVER taken their eye off the Balkans. That area has NEVER been at peace, just periods of simmering resentment between wars. The longest they had Peace was under Tito. That's why I'm shocked they are in the process of joining the EU, they are always going to war with each other whether they are in the EU or not!
The war has damaged the west severely, contrary to what you say. The German economy is spiralling downhill, and Europe's with it, while everything is moving to the USA for its benefit. No one has gained from the conflict except the USA, as with WW2.
The war machine needs feeding.. I wonder why more countries don't take the same approach as Switzerland? It is one of, if not, the most desirable country to live.
The relationship with Russia depends on whether Russia remains intact. There is a strong possibility that Putin will cause The Russian Federation to break up into more than twenty independent states. I agree with everything that Frank has stated.
Russia made no real effort to work with the west. They remained a supporter of anti west dictatorships since the fall of the Soviet Union. His view is rather stilted on that fact
well to put the idea into context, it wasn’t all that unrealistic an idea as it is what the French and Germans did after the Second World War and it has been very successful. I think they just thought that would also work for Russia and Putin was actually signalling that was his intent. It really changed when Russia started to feel ignored on issues, i think that was under Bush. I think it was possible, it would have meant understanding the psyche of a nation that has rapidly lost empire and prestige. Now the UK had the US to rely on to a large extent then tied itself into Europe for decades. Russia has just felt the raw diminishment without any real substitute. That’s not to justify what they are doing in Ukraine. For Russians, who went from the Soviet system, they went from having not much variety but the basics consistently, to huge queues and the transition to democracy under Yeltsin, was not given solid foundation as the ordinary Russian experience probably saw it as chaotic and unreliable.
He said that the 1990s belief that trade and economic interdependence mitigate against war has been proven false. I disagree. I think that is has largely been proven true throughout the world with rare exceptions, one being Russia. First Russia wasn't that well integrated with western economies. 1. There have long been sanctions on Russia especially after 2014. 2. Trade with the west was dominated by a single sector primary product: hydrocarbons. 3. To a lesser extent Russia sold a another primary product: grains.. 4. Russia's second biggest export commodity was weapons which the west did NOT buy. 5. Russia was not much of a manufacturer and exporter for the global supply chain. It mostly imported technology like microchips. 6. Russia has its own currency which is little used outside of Russia, especially beyond hydrocarbon purchases. Second, China can be said to be an example with its threats to take Taiwan. 1. But China has been threatening this long before it integrated into the world economy. 2. China has only fought one small war in the past 70 years when it got embarrassed by Vietnam. 3. China has yet to invade Taiwan. 4. It is still possible that harsh economic sanctions, among other deterrents like military and political, can prevent China from attacking Taiwan. Third, trade among the vast majority of first world nations has had exactly the effect of forging peaceful relations. Europe, for example, had historically been constantly at war and now that peace is solid, apart from Russia, which is really a Eurasian outlier. Fourth, trade between first and third world nations had in the past been exploitive and along with ideology that fueled conflict. However today that trade is less exploitive and the conflict is no longer fueled by ideology with the fall of communism. Although the Ukraine war is currently highly salient in our minds, we have to recognize that it is an aberration and not the norm. Russia is an economic aberration in that it was not well integrated economically for the 6 reasons stated above. Putin is an aberration except for a handful of other tyrants. It is true that when economic conditions get tough, people become more self centered and narcissistic and turn to right wing populism which has historically led to wars. That continues to be a risk. Some will say that it is democracy that has led to peace but objectively historically that is totally false. Democracies have really proven to be the most war mongering. Count the number and frequency of wars fought by the USA & UK for example. In real reality if you count number of wars, frequency of wars, military budget, offensive wars, the notion that democracies are peaceful is a total joke. In real reality if you use these criteria, the USA& UK are biggest warmonger nations in the past several hundred years. For example USA has fought 675 war-years in the 244 years between 1775 and 2019. That's 2.77 wars during every year of our existence. Very few were defensive. Almost all were aggressive territorial or economic expansionist. Do the history and looks up all the many wars both nations have fought. You won't want to believe it but if you're honest you'll be surprised. Mutually beneficial trade between first world nations with both sides following fair rules has been a far better factor in peace than democracy.
There was a big positive support yesterday so i suspect there will be a massive counter shift wave attack in fake social reality today. Just watch the liars do it again.
All that is said by commentators below could easily be applied to the USA, and too many have swallowed for too long a very particular self-serving Anglo-American narrative that Russia is bad, by defintion. American behaviour through foreign policy is that of Empire, and is more greatly extended than Russia's by a long way. and attempts to impose rule by corporate and financial gain. After the ending of the USSR, the 'West' (which has become all too often a mere euphemism for Anglo-Americanism) had a window of opportunity to be of benefit to Russia, and Russia of benefit to Europe especially with all its natural resources. Instead, U.S. foreign policy was taken over by the self-named 'Neo-Cons' along with persistent Russo-phobia, and treated that country very badly indeed. See the opening of Naomi Klein's book 'Shock Doctrine' to understand the planned de-construction of the Russian economy for foreign corporate benefit. Not satisfied with this, there came next talk of breaking up the Russian Federation from Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard, beginning with states breaking away. A chapter was included in Foreign Affairs magazine. Henry Kissinger, by 1999, appeared to 'predict' a war in Ukraine happening in 2011 or just after. The 'Orange Revolution' had all the hallmarks of an extremist nationalist movement seeded with CIA encouragement. The rest is where we are now. Whatever the final outcome, the people of Ukraine will have lost everything, that is to say, an economy they can call their own, just as Iraqi people have lost theirs, to 'western' corporations. I rest my case at this point.
I think this guy is a bit early in his hindsight - Russia is well on the way to becoming more free and democratic, it's only been 30 years since the curtain fell. What Putin is doing also is to fight back against a growing movement for freedom and sense of justice in Russia. He's desperate on all fronts and in the end the russian people and Ukraine will prevail.
TO ALL VIEWERS: Ukraine is a cause worth supporting. Let's contact our government representatives to urge them to do two things: 1 - Increase military aid to Ukraine. 2 - Toughen sanctions on Russia. 3 - Accept Ukraine into NATO. You can call your representatives, send them an email, send them a good old fashioned letter, respond to one of their Tweets ... something. Take the time to help Ukraine now ... you'll be proud of yourself when you do.
The world would be more developed and in a better place if we didn't have to pander to certain countries and political organisation in our own countries dragging us back
The 'West' is a collection of countries, not an organisation or federal block each country chooses its own path and supports or not supports each other. The so called west is an increasing group of countries who have a setlled legal system working within a solid democratic system who work with international norms.
Lol another comedian?
@@konjicgrbonjic3131 ? Your point?
@@konjicgrbonjic3131 Another conspiracy theorists? If you're not already, move to Russia. The vast majority of it's population (the one's that haven't left) believe the same malarkey that it sounds like you do. So, you're just another part of the problem in the world.
The West exists for the overwhelming part out of two blocks: the USA (+ Canada, as its appendix) and the EU (+ Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein as its appendix).
@@dirkgonthier101 even Japan is Western and South Korea pretty much also.
The western world or above all the democratic world has been increasing strongly till this very day
I think "being nice" to a country run as a criminal gang would have just created more problems when they inevitably attacked another country
How many countries are invaded by British and Americans?
@@milerale5286 none at the second I don't think. But you''ll notice that when they do bring military to a place, **they don't try to keep it*
@@milerale5286 In modern time? Only if they are attacked first or the country is harboring terrorists causing issues on the world stage. The US and Britain show great restraint considering the BS that Iran, North Korea, Russian and now China are doing to destabilize the free world.
Criminal gang! Have you heard of the British Conservative party?!!
China is a good example, but I suspect you mean Russia. In all fairness to Afghanistan (and Iraq), anyone harboring Bin Laden on 9/12 was either going to get out of the way or be steamrollered. Iraq had previously used chemical weapons on their own people, and was trying very hard to convince their neighbors (Iran) that they still had them. On 9/12 it was too late to try and convince the USA that they didn't, so Iraq became a "while we're at it". We could have left the dictator in Iraq and saved ourselves a lot of blood and treasure, but hindsight is always 20/20. The real moral of that story is "don't attack the USA and allies".
Mistakes were made.
Best intentions sometimes backfire. Going forward NATO needs to carefully weigh the cost of security. Cheap Chinese products and cheap Russian gas as it turns out carry a hidden cost that could very well undermine everything, almost as if it was planned for.
I agree with most of what Mr. Furedi says in terms of how we got here; however, I think he didn't give sufficient weight to putin's overt actions to undermine the process of Russia finding its place in the modern world. One could reasonably argue that Russia culturally, socially and geopolitically simply is not yet ready to participate at the level that most modern countries are operating at in 2022. The mistake here, though, is that one would be assessing and entire country based on the actions of its dictator and the corrupt government that he is responsible for installing. We simply cannot know if Russia is capable of joining the modern world. putin's war will likely result in a reset for Russia. It may get another chance to try, but it is more likely that putin will be replaced with putin 2.0
More than likely, in its’ entire history Russia has only experienced at best 10 years of democracy from the early 90’s to the early 2000’s and even then it was like the Wild West.
I totally agree with you. As long as hard liners with Soviet Empire mentality are still alive it isn't possible to integrate Russia to the modern world although majority of the people specially the younger generations are hungry for change in the Kremlin.
This is not necessarily true. According to Yevgenia Albats, (a veteran Russian journalist with very good sources) even The most hawkish members of Putin's security Council were against this war, including extremely surprisingly! Nikolai Patrushev. Apparently also according to Medusa (The Russian liberal newspaper which also has great sources) most of Putin's cabinet were kept in the dark and were absolutely horrified when the "special military operation" was announced.
It's also important to note that the likes of Dugin and Girkin/Strelkov are part of a tiny but extremely vocal minority in Russia. A majority of the population either couldn't care less or are bitterly opposed to the war.
Putin's regime is extremely personalistic, if he goes so too does the regime. To me it's all about who can organize better, and it's likely not the militaristic wing.
@@liamrichardson8787 not to mention that if (when) Russia looses it will loose its imperial space (Ukraine solidly in the western block, central Asia will fall into the Chinese sphere, the caucasus into Turkish or European depending on country, Belarus is more likely to overthrow Lukashenka and fall into the European sphere) Russia itself will have suffered such a big fall of status that can only choose between chinese vassalage (as now the obvious leader of the anti US hegemony block) or reapproaching itself with the west to excape this Chinese orbit.
@@mendesjosr4438 Very true! The real test will be which way Russia decides to move. Before the war a Highly respected General called Leonid Ivashov (not a dove by any means) accused Vladimir Putin of treason and declared that NATO was "in check" and that the real problem was China.
Ivashov's opinions are I suspect shared within the Russian army. China and Russia have never really been allies historically.
There is also the problem of population. China has a large population and Russia's is declining. About 75% of the Russian population lives to the west of the Ural mountains leaving Siberia sparsely populated, difficult to defend and full of natural resources which China would love to have.
Given Ivashov's thinking and the potential that China could begin to seriously consider making it's own claims on historical territory in say East Manchuria, I think it highly likely that the next Russian government may have to have a rapprochement with the west.
As for Lukashenko his goose is cooked. His people hate him and have zero desire to be absorbed into Russia. When Putin goes so to does he.
❤Ukrainians 🇬🇪
Quite - our failing was letting 2014/Crimea go.
No our failure was allowing 2 Russian secret service agents rocking around London on a jolly and watching an Arsenal match and the pouring polonium nuclear material into Litvinekos cup of tea. Right there and then I knew that you couldn’t let that slide. And they did. And absolute F**king joke. Russian oligarchs just keep infesting London further and further 🤦
Actually it was of muchness in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria. Russian brutality knows no bounds.
Churchill wanted to incorporate the defeated German army into the allied forces and march on Russia at the end of WW2. Everyone thought he was crazy then but looking back now, it was a brilliant idea.
@@PharmaTroll MacArthur wanted to drop something like 12 of them on N Korea to win the war and everyone thought he was crazy too...
@@PharmaTroll excellent commentary.
Absolutely brilliant man Churchill was.🙏🏻
I may not agree with Churchill on everything, but *boy howdy* are he and I of one mind when it comes to the question of Russia. We ought to have kept marching.
Patton also. Rommel never understood why the western allies weren't fighting with the Germans against the soviets
Hasn't a major problem largely been that Russia is just too big? In an era where Empires in the traditional sense of the word were largely dismantled nearly 2 generations ago, Russia still thinks like an Empire, and it has a leader who moved back to a position of 'Must beat the West' that was endemic in the USSR he grew up in, but the problem is Russia just isn't anywhere near as powerful as the USSR was so it's a lopsided fight.
@00 00 You seem to be jumping a few steps ahead of me here, I'm not suggesting that at all, China & India are/will be doing that as China's already ascendant in the region & India is coming up, meanwhile Russia's heading the other way only hastened by it's actions this year.
I wouldn't say the problem was that Russia was too big. Socially it is half the size of the US, and the US isn't all that populous on the world stage. True, Russia had (and has) a huge amount of land, but most of it is close to depopulated. It is the sort of place that doesn't have enough people on their own to stand on the world stage beside the likes of the countries around it (that might want to eat it), so needs to cling to some more powerful place that they think can protect them. If Russia falls, most of it's east will not become independent states, they will simply become part of some other existing state that will eat them. If anything, most of the east is a liability for Russia, not an asset except for bragging rights on land mass.
The problem with Russia is that the Soviet mentality in the leadership wasn't removed after Gorby. We in the 'west" thought that if we just sent in McDonald's and KFC that they would learn the benefits of capitalism and become part of the west. Instead it led to a whole lot of lawlessness, the rise of organized crime, random and continuous gang killings, the rise of oligarchs that bought up most of the previously state-owned assets, and and most importantly, it allowed KGB leaders like Putin and his friends to assert that the west had abandoned Russia to it's own devices (and we had, he spoke the truth), and now the people of Russia needed a strong leader like him to lead them to a better world.
The same thing could have happened to Germany after WW II. But it didn't, because it lost the war with the rest of the world, and the people that won the war saw how it had come about as the result of the conditions set after Germany lost WW I. They were determined not to make the same mistake, and they strenuously vetted the attitude and credentials of all of the school teachers and the people they allowed into the government. The end result was Germany refuted it's previous nasty ways, and became a new country. That didn't happen to Russia. The same people, with the same ideas, stayed in charge, and tried (and are trying) to recreate a version of the Soviet times they remember.
It's hard to see how the west could have done much better. Russia didn't loose a war, so there was no overt justification for England, France, and the US to partition the country and clean up the political situation there like it did in Germany. And even if they had wanted to, Russia still had nukes (and they almost certainly worked in those days), so it would have been dangerous to try. But what Russia really needed was something like the English Colonial Office to take them under their wing for 20 years, and teach them how a capitalist economy should work (no, greed and theft aren't it, despite current US teaching) and how a government of and FOR the people should really work. But that didn't happen, so here we are.
All that you say could easily be applied to the USA. It's behaviour through foreign policy is that of Empire, and attempt to impose rule by corporate and financial gain. After the ending of the USSR, the 'West' (which has become all too often a mere euphemism for Anglo-Americanism) had a window of opportunity to be of benefit to Russia, and Russia of benefit to Europe especially with all its natural resources. Instead, U.S. foreign policy was taken over by the self-named 'Neo-Cons' along with persistent Russo-phobia, and treated that country very badly indeed. See the opening of Naomi Klein's book 'Shock Doctrine' to understand the planned de-construction of the Russian economy for foreign corporate benefit. Not satisfied with this, there came next talk of breaking up the Russian Federation from Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard, beginning with states breaking away. A chapter was included in Foreign Affairs magazine. Henry Kissinger, by 1999, appeared to 'predict' a war in Ukraine happening in 2011 or just after. The 'Orange Revolution' had all the hallmarks of an extremist nationalist movement seeded with CIA encouragement. The rest is where we are now. Whatever the final outcome, the people of Ukraine will have lost everything, that is to say, an economy they can call their own, just as Iraqi people have lost theirs, to 'western' corporations. I rest my case at this point.
I'm confused....who ever said or purported that "the war will revitalize the West"? If anything, it's a net drain on the West a price being paid to address a very long-standing issue with Russia/USSR.
Also, who ever said that anyone (other than Russia) was ever proactively trying to integrate Russia into the west, the western economy, etc.?
I think everyone, even Russian "allies" have always kept them at arm's length, primarily because there has never been any substantial evidence that it's ever progressed in any meaningful way from 300 years ago. Still a wannabe superpower, still almost genetically given to self-destruction, a huge, unwarranted ego which is oddly built an inferiority complex.
The thing is, that Russia could be a genuine Super Power, if it just got itself together politically and economically, but....again, it has always been prone to encouraging it's own self-destructive follies, some sort of tsar/serf mentality persists.
Furedi is a bit of a confusing person. He embraces Orban's "war on wokeness" which Putin and Orban stylize as "Satanism" and breakdown of cultural values.
I think they meant the West finding the value of its unity and the value of its own values. These things have been under attack (and Putin did its best to feed anti-democratic ideas, divisive leaders, moral relativisms, distrust in our governments, scientists and disgust amongst ourselves for the freedoms we enjoy)
Not a Tsar mentality, instead it’s a serf mentality that prevents Russia from being peaceful and prosperous.
The policy of Germany and France weee very much integrationist - they are paying the price for their folly.
@@veronicamaine3813 if you mean the deluded attempt to integrate Ruzzia through trade, I agree. If you mean some sort of Europe for Europeans nonsense, the Hungarians are paying the price of massive corruption and increasing isolation
This idea that Russia was excluded or disrespected ignores an important fact. Even when there seemed to be better relations, Russia continued to politically support Saddam Hussein, Assad, Mohommer Ghaddfi and other tyrants who were self declared enemies of the west. They supported Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. So, it was almost impossible to consider Russia as some kind of ally when they were still waist deep in the remaining Anti-west coalition.
Moving forward, a post-Putin Russia will have to make a choice. Join with the west and share in and live with western values, or gravitate toward China and continue facing western hostility.
Spot on. Russians have started a war and defacto annexed a part of Moldova back in 1992. At the same time inhabitants of Moscow were reliant on humanitarian aid from Germany. So much for being "disrespected".
@@timbehrens9678
Exactly. Russia made no effort to get along. They just wanted to continue being feared. Hopefully when a new government takes over in Moscow they will see the error of their ways. Otherwise the can be Chinas where house and resource center. Their days of being respected as a super power are over.
Like a drug addicted teenager's parent looking back at what they could've done better.
Do russians not have any responsibility themselves?
Excellent report and excellent commentary by this gentlemen!!🇺🇸🦅👍🏻
I didn't realize that the West was "unvitalized".
😅
Include Russia in NATO? This interviewee is out of touch. Russia is in the UN as a permanent member and has a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The purpose of the (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) and is charged with ensuring international peace and security, So it's laughable to me to consider there are things that would have made Russia play nice with it's neighbors as long as Putin is in charge.
Well said.
No Russia, no problem.
Russia needs to be isolated & contained. Putin is on his way out and about the only thing we can be assured of is whoever replaces him will be just as bad it now worse, it’s the Russian way.
I don't think anyone has EVER taken their eye off the Balkans. That area has NEVER been at peace, just periods of simmering resentment between wars. The longest they had Peace was under Tito. That's why I'm shocked they are in the process of joining the EU, they are always going to war with each other whether they are in the EU or not!
Super commentary
I would say the war revitalised the West, the moment Zelensky didn't do a Poroshenko and asked for help for his country, not a mansion in Surrey.
The war has damaged the west severely, contrary to what you say. The German economy is spiralling downhill, and Europe's with it, while everything is moving to the USA for its benefit. No one has gained from the conflict except the USA, as with WW2.
Hindsight is lovely
How do you get drawn into a conflict by visiting a border crossing?
The war machine needs feeding.. I wonder why more countries don't take the same approach as Switzerland? It is one of, if not, the most desirable country to live.
Alexyi Navalny has a pretty good course Russia should take, if he can get out of prison!! Read his recent op ed...
Ask him whom Crimea belongs to...
The relationship with Russia depends on whether Russia remains intact. There is a strong possibility that Putin will cause The Russian Federation to break up into more than twenty independent states. I agree with everything that Frank has stated.
So that will be 20 little russias each with its own putin and numerous nukes..... rather deal with one
Russia made no real effort to work with the west. They remained a supporter of anti west dictatorships since the fall of the Soviet Union. His view is rather stilted on that fact
well to put the idea into context, it wasn’t all that unrealistic an idea as it is what the French and Germans did after the Second World War and it has been very successful. I think they just thought that would also work for Russia and Putin was actually signalling that was his intent. It really changed when Russia started to feel ignored on issues, i think that was under Bush. I think it was possible, it would have meant understanding the psyche of a nation that has rapidly lost empire and prestige. Now the UK had the US to rely on to a large extent then tied itself into Europe for decades. Russia has just felt the raw diminishment without any real substitute. That’s not to justify what they are doing in Ukraine. For Russians, who went from the Soviet system, they went from having not much variety but the basics consistently, to huge queues and the transition to democracy under Yeltsin, was not given solid foundation as the ordinary Russian experience probably saw it as chaotic and unreliable.
He said that the 1990s belief that trade and economic interdependence mitigate against war has been proven false. I disagree. I think that is has largely been proven true throughout the world with rare exceptions, one being Russia.
First Russia wasn't that well integrated with western economies.
1. There have long been sanctions on Russia especially after 2014.
2. Trade with the west was dominated by a single sector primary product: hydrocarbons.
3. To a lesser extent Russia sold a another primary product: grains..
4. Russia's second biggest export commodity was weapons which the west did NOT buy.
5. Russia was not much of a manufacturer and exporter for the global supply chain. It mostly imported technology like microchips.
6. Russia has its own currency which is little used outside of Russia, especially beyond hydrocarbon purchases.
Second, China can be said to be an example with its threats to take Taiwan.
1. But China has been threatening this long before it integrated into the world economy.
2. China has only fought one small war in the past 70 years when it got embarrassed by Vietnam.
3. China has yet to invade Taiwan.
4. It is still possible that harsh economic sanctions, among other deterrents like military and political, can prevent China from attacking Taiwan.
Third, trade among the vast majority of first world nations has had exactly the effect of forging peaceful relations. Europe, for example, had historically been constantly at war and now that peace is solid, apart from Russia, which is really a Eurasian outlier.
Fourth, trade between first and third world nations had in the past been exploitive and along with ideology that fueled conflict. However today that trade is less exploitive and the conflict is no longer fueled by ideology with the fall of communism.
Although the Ukraine war is currently highly salient in our minds, we have to recognize that it is an aberration and not the norm. Russia is an economic aberration in that it was not well integrated economically for the 6 reasons stated above.
Putin is an aberration except for a handful of other tyrants.
It is true that when economic conditions get tough, people become more self centered and narcissistic and turn to right wing populism which has historically led to wars. That continues to be a risk.
Some will say that it is democracy that has led to peace but objectively historically that is totally false. Democracies have really proven to be the most war mongering. Count the number and frequency of wars fought by the USA & UK for example. In real reality if you count number of wars, frequency of wars, military budget, offensive wars, the notion that democracies are peaceful is a total joke. In real reality if you use these criteria, the USA& UK are biggest warmonger nations in the past several hundred years. For example USA has fought 675 war-years in the 244 years between 1775 and 2019. That's 2.77 wars during every year of our existence. Very few were defensive. Almost all were aggressive territorial or economic expansionist. Do the history and looks up all the many wars both nations have fought. You won't want to believe it but if you're honest you'll be surprised.
Mutually beneficial trade between first world nations with both sides following fair rules has been a far better factor in peace than democracy.
The average person who doesn't know history will attack my statement on democracies but they are idiots who know nothing.
There was a big positive support yesterday so i suspect there will be a massive counter shift wave attack in fake social reality today. Just watch the liars do it again.
Yeah that Putin he's quite the chess player 😂🤡😂
All that is said by commentators below could easily be applied to the USA, and too many have swallowed for too long a very particular self-serving Anglo-American narrative that Russia is bad, by defintion. American behaviour through foreign policy is that of Empire, and is more greatly extended than Russia's by a long way. and attempts to impose rule by corporate and financial gain. After the ending of the USSR, the 'West' (which has become all too often a mere euphemism for Anglo-Americanism) had a window of opportunity to be of benefit to Russia, and Russia of benefit to Europe especially with all its natural resources. Instead, U.S. foreign policy was taken over by the self-named 'Neo-Cons' along with persistent Russo-phobia, and treated that country very badly indeed. See the opening of Naomi Klein's book 'Shock Doctrine' to understand the planned de-construction of the Russian economy for foreign corporate benefit. Not satisfied with this, there came next talk of breaking up the Russian Federation from Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard, beginning with states breaking away. A chapter was included in Foreign Affairs magazine. Henry Kissinger, by 1999, appeared to 'predict' a war in Ukraine happening in 2011 or just after. The 'Orange Revolution' had all the hallmarks of an extremist nationalist movement seeded with CIA encouragement. The rest is where we are now. Whatever the final outcome, the people of Ukraine will have lost everything, that is to say, an economy they can call their own, just as Iraqi people have lost theirs, to 'western' corporations. I rest my case at this point.
One answer on how to deal with a crumbling Russia: Let it be.
I think this guy is a bit early in his hindsight - Russia is well on the way to becoming more free and democratic, it's only been 30 years since the curtain fell. What Putin is doing also is to fight back against a growing movement for freedom and sense of justice in Russia. He's desperate on all fronts and in the end the russian people and Ukraine will prevail.
No if ukraine wins russia breaks apart.
Liz Truss democracy? Thanks, but no, thanks🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
TO ALL VIEWERS: Ukraine is a cause worth supporting. Let's contact our government representatives to urge them to do two things:
1 - Increase military aid to Ukraine.
2 - Toughen sanctions on Russia.
3 - Accept Ukraine into NATO.
You can call your representatives, send them an email, send them a good old fashioned letter, respond to one of their Tweets ... something. Take the time to help Ukraine now ... you'll be proud of yourself when you do.
The world would be more developed and in a better place if we didn't have to pander to certain countries and political organisation in our own countries dragging us back
A perfect view to get eaten by all the ones left behind, huh?
this time the war will come to the anglosaxon islands, by airmail:-)
Read you history. Already been tried. Didn’t work out well for Germany.
@@GeeBeeMike the brits will destroy themselves anyway with there idiotic leaders :-))
Frank Furedi is never knowingly right about anything. Why do we still listen to him?
Autocracy and Kleptocracy = PUTLERCRAZY😡🤬.....L🤣
Meh.
Moisty voice
“Not in europe” how quickly they forget the nato agression war against yugoslavia
You mean the war Milosevic’s cronies brought on themselves with their multiple attempts at genocide?
Ivan....Stop with your Kremlin talking points. You just come across as really dumb to those of us in the West living in the 21st century.
How would you have delt with that master mind.
lol "Nato aggression" keep drinking the Kool aid kid....
Got your call up papers yet?