Hello all. I hope you are doing well. I haven’t done one of these Q&A videos in a while. I’d forgotten how much I enjoyed making them. As ever, I had more questions than I could manage. I hope to post another next week. In the meantime, thanks so much to everyone who contributed a question. And apologies to those I wasn’t able to cover this time.
@@alexk483 On Russia-Ukraine there is no room for ambiguity or “balance”. This is the most serious violation of international law of modern times. I make no apology for taking an extremely critical position on Russia’s actions. Russia needs to be defeated. However, there is a part II to this video (I will put it up next week) where I also point out Western failings and how the US and others have also eroded international law. Ultimately, my interest is in trying to preserve a system of international law and a UN that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity and maintains international order. A lot of countries have undermined those principles. But again, I’m not going to gloss over Russia’s actions in the name of some sort of ‘balance’.
Although I sympathise with the Catalan cause, the fact is that support for independence at the moment is simply too low for that, it is barely at 50%. When Slovenia and Croatia sought independence, support for independance was around 90%. If the Catalan support was the same, the Spanish intervention would utterly fail! If I were a Catalan nationalist, I would choose a long-term strategy, to strengthen Catalonia's position within Spain and continue to promote the Catalan language, instead of seeking independence at this moment. But that's just my two cents.
Jim, as always, Professor. I sincerely appreciate all that you have done; it has been incredibly beneficial. You've provided an amazing and in-depth analysis. It has been a fantastic experience for me as a student of politics and international relations. I'm grateful, Prof.🎉
@@otngomot9929 Thank you so much! It had been a while since I had done one of these. I would certainly like to do them a bit more often. (Perhaps making them more thematic.)
The Netherlands would love it if their caribbean islands would become independent. But they just keep refusing it and want to stay in the Dutch kingdom.
@@thespiritphoenix3798I’m not Dutch, but I’d imagine administering overseas territories with limited strategic value tends to weigh on the national balance sheet a little bit
@@thespiritphoenix3798 From what I know a lot of subsidies are given to those territories because they are underdeveloped. But their local politicians are also quite corrupt, so the money doesn't necessarily end up in the right place.
@@buddy1155 I don’t think that Dutch people care. There are 6 tiny islands, not bigger than a medium sized village. I certainly don’t mind. They can choose for independence if they like (at least Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten can), but they are really so small that the budget is not an issue at all.
You are one of the best 'explainers' on this platform, professor. I'm always interested in your breakdowns of very complex situations. You present things in a way that is very digestible, but is very professional and academic. Been cool to see how your content has evolved alongside the events you cover.
The issue with Democratic secession is that is it becomes a demographic competition for power. Which can lead very quickly to ethnic cleansing if one side starts losing the demographic game. It seems to me Federations or Confederations are almost always the better choice. With the understanding that succession simply isn’t an option.
You are right. Politicians would appear that would be more interested in their jobs, as any new state needs more parlamentarians than it needed before seccession, plus a government, than in the wellbeing of the people. But it is a case by case scenario. How viable would the new state be? Are the differences with the former sovereign state that insurmontable? What minorities will the new state have? Because you can enter a never ending game of breaking away of territories, until you end up with a city state 😮.
Our mistake was ignoring or even approving US military interventionism. It reached point Russia was affraid of NATO invasion force in Ukraine which would leave them exposed to Regime Change operation or forced to start nuclear war. As we know curse of resource rich countries are Absentee Landlords, orforeign based owners of those natural resources, and that is why Russia cannot ever benefit if owners of their resources live abroad unconcerned by lives of 90% of Russian population. Regarding legalised secession, it should have been codified when Kosovo was separated from Serbia, but nothing like that was done, probably because Palestinians would want to split from Israel and few Wedt European coutries have reguons which might want to split too?
@@JamesKerLindsay I agree, but then was even more grave mistake not creating at least strong proposal for set of rules when oppressed minority can separate and go own way. I thought USA was opposed because it would affect Israel.
Professor Ker-Lindsay! I think for the Russian-Ukrainian war, an objective analysis should be made why Russia started a full scale war against its most populous and probably strongest neighbour from the former Soviet republics and did not do that against other weaker neighbours (only limited invasion of Georgia). It would be good to hear your professional opinion on this!
They had invaded a part of Ukraine in the past as well. I think the reason for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was they saw Ukraine quickly moving closer to the west and they feared that Ukraine would join nato or the EU, making future land grabs impossible. They thought the invasion would be quick and they planned to install a pro-Russia government similar to the current Belarus government.
@@mbayatab4326 A democratic, prosperous Ukraine, member of EU and NATO would be a mortal danger to the Russian type of government. Whether the czaris, communist or putinist Russia, the model is allways the same. A tiny elite robbs the country and supresses the population. Russia could be one of the most prosperous countries of the world but is not. The average income in Russia is about 14 000 $ in Portugal it is about 20 000$. For Russian this is the only way of doing politics they know, a better way to do things would be runinous.
We were promised Russia’s Economy would collapse, become isolated and Putin removed. Nothing of this has happened. I am convinced neocons in the US wanted/ provoked this war. I do not believe the US cares about Ukraine, this is all about weakening Russia, from their perspective.
I think the idea was that Georgia is much more homogeneous nationally and even if they completely overran it, it would be just another Afghanistan. They simply underestimated the true feelings of Ukrainians, who have much more national conscience than anyone expected.
@@m.walther6434 Russia, Ukraine Belarus and Poland and other states after the fall of Soviet Union were in disastrous state and corruption and oligarchs from the west rolled in and made people who would never be rich, billionaires. Putin cracked down on corruption massively, so did Belarus and Poland. Ukraine simply did not know how to do it. Ukraine was the biggest underperformer in the history of modern times in Europe. When Russia focused on economy, diversification, balanced the budget. Belarusian growth was for years like 20%. Ukraine simply stagnated because it only relies on cheap gas from Russia, until Russia said they will not subsidise it any more, corruption was to such level that western companies did not want to do business there as people stole money left and right so instead they invested in Russia, Poland etc. Ukraine for years spent time developing “ symbols” some logos , some idea whom the want to be as a new country, they were not one nation, different languages , different perception of history. It was hard and they did not have anyone like Putin but very poor leaders. Crimea Donbas, had no investement and looked worse than in Soviet times.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 with the geopolitical winds changing direction I wouldn't be certain major conflict may be just around the corner Serbs will never give up kosovo.
If you think about the dynamics of each case, you will see it's not the same. But if you think Russia is the big brother of Serbia - first of all Serbia is older then Russia with it's on rich culture. Secondly read what Dejan Beric has to say. He reported that Serbian volunteers get treated like cattle and get called "gypsies". So there is you respect you get from Russia. And if things played out differently in the 90ies for Yugoslavia. And if Serbia in good terms wanted to join the EU - I would suggest Russia would pretty much leverage Kosovo to hinder Serbia's path to EU-integration.
Pertaining to the first question: have you not become more convinced that the West’s (largely US’s) meddling in other country’s societies and politics has created the current situation that will unleash instability and makes an argument for states becoming nuclear armed? Is the no indictment of the decades of upending various administrations/regimes.?
Russia set the precedent in 1992 when they invaded Georgia to support ethnic separatists in Abkhazia and Alania-South Ossetia Putin and Russian tv often talk about conquering and annexing the whole of Ukraine, and they’ve taken more than just Donetsk and Donbas they want Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to maintain a land bridge to Crimea.
@@m.walther6434the Serbs were genocided by those exact people's you are referring to during WW2... So according to that logic they should have been allowed to redraw borders
Amazing work again James, love this format which shows your own views and thoughts on the future. As a British citizen, I also sincerely hope the political climate in the UK shifts to allow for a rejoining as soon as possible. More pressure is needed on the new government to do what is right for the country and the continent. I now live in Germany and I do feel a valuable voice has been lost from the decision makers in Brussels
Canzuk exists, it's called "the Commonwealth". It would make more sense for an independent Quebec to join the EU than to create a new but redundant Anglo trade union.
All four members of the proposed Canzuk will soon be in the CPTPP and all have Youth Mobility agreements with each other. I am not sure what the benefit of deeper co-operation than that would be considering that the four countries are in three different parts of the world.
Weird that you view being a global country as havinf and empire and large armed forces... I think even the "global Britain" crowd would cringe at that. No one wants that.
@xanderreyno These are slogans and buzz words that hide detail and facts. The UK hasn't achieved a net economic gain from leaving the EU. Also every Farage and UKIP I met used global Britain in a way that is out of touch with reality, many I spoke to have a imperial attitude but don't even realise it.
Great channel. I feel privileged to live in a time where such quality information is free and 1 click away. Greetings from Europe Post scriptum: don't mind the haters/bots/trolls. The impact you have by educating open minded people is far greater than anything those bots can do. After all, haters gonna hate. Agreeing or disgreeing with the narratives they hold in their heads does not change how they feel. But if you can educate or even just nudge "normal" people towards an unbiased and more educated view of the world, than you have done an great deed by changing minds, which is the basis for the evolution of society and progress of humanity as a whole. It might be 100k, 10k, maybe 1k people, but it still is thousands of minds being changed, not to mention they will spread this knowledge with others.
Hey James, Don't know if you'll catch this but I never comment and just absorb the content. Keep going with it as long as you can. It is fantastic hearing second opinions as I don't get to have these 'conversations' with anyone else in my waking life. I appreciate it. Thanks.
On the state failing trend question, you mention the falling out of fashion of the responsibility to protect. This ties back in with the Russo-Ukraine war though in that it was explicitly the responsibility to protect that Putin invoked in the invasion. So even if it wasn't out of favor by 2022 I don't see how the West can ever rely on that justification for intervention again without looking like total hypocrits on Ukraine to the Global South. Not that the West has usually listened to the South in the past but the balance of power economically in the world is now changing fast and so that is becoming a bigger issue.
I do like and watched constantly, you're videos and content stories, history, Geopolitical analysis is very impressive, keep jumping on the most interesting global agenda's, thank you very much Professor James ker-Lindsay.
One of my favourite things about your channel is how you're engaging in discussions in the comments, few youtube channels your size does that. But I completely understand if the trolls and bots are getting too annoying. Thanks for all your hard work!
In a post-war world, should Crimea, Donetsk, Lukansk, etc. have a right to secede from whoever ends up holding the territory? Is there a neutral rule here or do we care only about whether we get along with the parent state at the moment?
I think the failure to fully develop relations with Russia was the result of the geopolitical hold the US held over Europe, and to some extent continues to. There were numerous examples of Russia under Putin trying to align itself with the west, particularly after September 2001 only for them to be rebuffed. My opinion is that the ultimate cause of this was the US trying to continually prove themselves as having "won" the cold war and it has resulted in them creating another one !!
I vividly remember seeing on TV Hillary Clinton coming to Moscow to talk about a reset in US-Russian relations and Lavrov just laughing in her face. You should find Russian news from 2001 and on. You would be amazed at the lack of any desire on the part of Russia to align itself with the West, no matter how hard the West tries.
In 1991 the Russian Empire died, the last European Empire, by the way. This spawned a lot of wars, which is quite usual when Empires die. WW I and II as examples.
We were promised Russia’s Economy would collapse, become isolated and Putin removed. Nothing of this has happened. I am convinced neocons in the US wanted/ provoked this war. I do not believe the US cares about Ukraine, this is all about weakening Russia, from their perspective.
yeah, I don't think France and Germany critiquing the US invasion of Iraq was exactly evidence of the US's control over Europe. And there was in fact plenty of cooperation with Russia after 2001. With that aforementioned invasion pretty indicative of the fact that the US didn't really care about Russia or China as their adversaries throughout the 2000's, and was pretty much entirely focused on the war on terror. So if it is due to the US "winning" the cold war, well they did, and Russia being salty doesn't justify murder.
@@EamonCoyle agree! On top of that There is proof the US wanted this (proxy) war. Nobody seems to know US provoked a coup d’ detat in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland was caught on tape… ” f** the EU”
2:20 and onwards.... it is amazing to watch you be so open and honest about how you feel about RUS-UKR. Also thanks for the introduction of a new concept to me - a "systemic war". Had not heard the term, and of course that is what both WW1 and WW2 were now I think about it.
For Russia it is easy to argue because the so called Western World did not stick to it own proclamed values. Catalonia, Scotland, Ireland, Balkan War’s etc. The West showed a lot of hipokricy in regard to its own problems.
Russia also opposes secession. Just consider Chechnya. And Britain gave Scotland a vote on independence. Russia has never offered any of its territories such a vote. And almost certainly never will. There is no justification for what Russia has done.
I agree CANZUK can't replace the EU in the sense that intra-CANZUK trade will not eclipse UK-EU trade in sheer volume, but that's no reason treaties and agreements under a CANZUK aegis are a bad idea. I'd love to see CANZUK labour mobility for example.
Professor I have to ask about your position that the war in Ukraine is a profound attack on the international order. Can it truly be considered that ground shaking when America was given a free pass to invade Iraq and Afghanistan under extremely dubious allegations and to completely failed ends? The invasion is certainly terrible and a greatly destabilizing event but so were the American invasions. On a follow up question do you see their being a viable path to victory for Russia that is anything short of a massive mobilization effort on their side, involving hundreds of thousands if not millions of soldiers be mobilized?
Allegations was "dubious" only in case of Iraq, and even there, no one tried to partition or annex this country... So no, those are not comparable cases.
He won't answer that! I'm still waiting for the Holy euRoPEaN Empire to pompously sanction the US for illegally occupying parts of Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Syria, Iraq, Mauritius (Diego Garcia), Serbia (Kosovo) and China (Taiwan, where troops have recently been sent) and so on AT THIS VERY MOMENT! but they won't.
🎯 On point. The U.S with U.K following and it's weapon N.A.T.O opened the door to the collapse of the order , they claim to love but don't often practice.
You're delusional if you thought there was ever a serious attempt to carve out kurdistan. Time and time again the west has given up on, backstabbed and let the kirds be oppressed by their own countries@@jkmcgregor7797
Regarding the post-war EU/Russia relations, I think you are starting from a point which makes an error of fact. You said that Putin came to power and then West./Russia relations fell apart. In reality US/Russian relations had collapsed two years prior in 1998 and the EU had returned to a sort of mid-Cold-War policy of trying to be dependant on both sides in order not to be dragged into a war. In fact the Rand Publican entitled "Extending Russia" noted (correctly) that relations between NATO and Russia had degraded so much under Yeltsin that Putin was initially seen as something of a relief. Now if this is the case it is hard to see relations between the EU and Russia depending on Russia going back to the Yeltsin years. You have noted correctly that there were mistakes here and I assume you are referring to NATO mistakes. In essence Russia has always been willing to cooperate as long as it is on equal terms. That was true under Yeltsin. It is true under Putin. It will probably be true under whoever succeeds Putin. But what this also means is that Russia will not (and never has) really kowtowed to hegemonic power. Even under Yeltsin, Russia saw itself (and conducted itself) as a great power and demanded respect, and when Russia was sidelined in issues relating to Serbia and Kosovo, we saw relations spiral downward. I think whatever continuity we have between the final years of Yeltsin (from 1998 onward) and Putin we can expect to see on Putin's successor regardless of any other political leanings. So in this way, I am not sure what it means for Russia to reform.
Hi Prof Ker-Lindsay, could you talk about the rules based international order, who started it, what is it, and how is it preserved? When nuclear armed superpowers violate it, as has happened a number of times this century, does this make it less tenable or viable?
The US and its sidekicks started using the term "rules-based order" relatively recently, presumably because they got tired of the UN Charter. The latter prohibits, for example, the uninvited US military occupation of a large area of Syria. By contrast the "rules-based order" means whatever the US want it to mean, because those "rules" aren't written down.
@SydWalker3k Even if the rules were written down, would they respect them? Take NATO as an example, they were talking about expanding NATO to Asia. Do they remember what the A in NATO stand for? Do they care what the Article 10 says about expansion of NATO members? A good example of your last paragraph is Gaza and Xinjiang. Blinken and other US officials have been asked several time why there is no gen0cide going on in Gaza but there is in Xinjiang. They basically cannot give a straight and convincing answer.
It is the term that US started to use when they were breaking international law, together with their Western friends, they concluded its better to use it and it means: the rules we set in the moment and none can accuse us of breaking the international law because it’s ‘ rule based order”. Everyone outside the West, interestingly knows what it means, because they have felt it.
@olivka7560 If you are going to chip in with comments, try to make them accurate. The rules based international order refers to the system set up after the Second World War. It is a system Russia, via the USSR, helped to create. It is not a Western construct. It is the UN and the body of international law created since then.
I take a different view, Prof. The rules-based international order is nowhere to be found in UN documentation. It is not a benign synonym for international law but is used as a alternative exclusively by Western powers to provide a legalistic gloss on the actions they took/take in defiance of the UN - bombing of Belgrade 1999, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and so on. It can be used to defend Netanyahu from ICC charges but attack Putin for same.
You’re my Friday evening dinner friend. I don’t really have anyone else, so I’m happy to have found your channel. I also was fascinated with politics as a kid. My grandfather always had the evening news on and we would watch while my grandmother was fixing dinner. My dad would get back after work and I would tell him all about what he missed, probably around the 2nd Reagan election. My grandfather was a good centrist, and that’s pretty much where I am today.
My understanding about Ukrainian nukes is that the launch codes were held in Moscow and even if the Ukrainians held onto the missiles, they couldn't launch them but perhaps they could repurpose the war heads, but that is speculation given the previous Ukrainian leaders from the 90s and early 00s.
They were not Kiev's weapons to repurpose. Any attempt to do so would be theft and it would make sense for Russia and/or even the West to act militarily to prevent that, because of how serious the threat of proliferation would have been.
@@VTh-f5x isn't thee conclusion more relevant than the maybe convoluted reasoning ? After all it was done by a Diplomat who of course cannot think in a straight line
I'm now picturing a Leichtensteinian successionist movement, something like what I see in the United States in which some members of the local First Baptist Church don't like the hymns being chosen and leave to form the Second Baptist Church.
Regarding France and Germany, Robert Schuman's Victory Day speech in 1950 (the one which announced the ECSC and which Europe Day commemorates) said the goal was to make war between France and Germany "not merely unthinkable but materially impossible." And it wasn't just about economic links but rather specifically denying both countries full national control over munitions supply chains. Economic connections are one thing but when a country cannot control their own coal and steel industries, when they cannot control their currency (and hence public debts), then they cannot go onto a full war footing. This means that while the EU is armed, it cannot really go to war in the sense of WWI or WWII, nor can any EU member state. I think this also is a major component of the reaction to the Ukraine war in Europe.
Thank you for this! I really enjoyed it. It was good to see the man behind the presentation. In the past, I've disagreed with some of your views, especially on secession (and International Politics would be incredibly dull if we ever did come to a unified consensus on that). However, I found it very useful to hear you reasoning for your views, and the added nuance. I found it most persuasive. You also gave me a bit more hope for a British EU reunion (or Brunion, if you will). Or at least co-operation. I'm of the millennial generation, but my parents are old enough to remember joining in the first place. One thing that I have noticed is a difference in identity when it comes to Europe. I was born and brought up in the EU. I've lived and worked there. So, like many will say "I'm Scottish. But I'm also British", I've always felt "I'm British. But I'm also European". There are many aspects of identity, rule of law, religion etc. that we have in common with Europe, but not with say The USA or Japan, two Western nations that Britain is otherwise very close to. So the impact of Brexit on myself and many of my co-generationals has been quite traumatic; in a way, not dissimilar to an involuntary secession. I identify as European, but I am no longer a citizen of my parent nation. So, naturally, I am drawn to any information that suggests that rejoining is at least an option. However, most media presents this as an impossibility (or something to discuss in 30 years time or so), which is quite disheartening. (You also get those very negative comments from some people saying "If you wanted to be in Europe, you shouldn't have left. We don't need or want you", which ignores the nuance of the situation, or how divided British identity has become nowadays). So, again, I found your take to be much more optimistic and thought provoking. Thank you.
Thanks so much. Part of the reason I like doing these videos is that they give me a chance to explain my views and reasoning a little more clearly. I enjoy doing the usual videos, but they are highly scripted. This is a little more free-flowing and allows me to be more myself. :-) I am completely with you on Brexit., Britain and the EU. I always describe myself as British and European. (I am actually a mix of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and a touch of Australian!) I really do hope that we can and will rejoin sooner rather than later, buit it won't be a quick process. And, sadly, Starmer seems determined to be super cautious on any closer alignment, even though we both know that it would do wonders for the economy. As it happens, I am now living back in the EU and so I see the mess Brexit has caused even more acutely. And it made moving back to Cyprus, where I lived for many years when I was younger, so much more difficult.
Neutral ?? There is a reason why most of the worlds population support Russia (BRICS++++). They are fed up with US/Western wars, coups, assasinations, sanctions etc.
30:15 ... "years later doing the channel." And rapidly approaching 200K subscribers ... Not too bad at all ... 💪 Rather successful ... I dare say ... Professor ... 👏👏👏
One of the best things about these kind of platforms is the fact that we can interact with the content creators but unfortunately a few idiots ruin it. It makes me wary of commenting myself so I can imagine it must be very frustrating for the creators.
As a response to your answer to the last question, I just want to mention how much I appreciate your videos here on UA-cam. There are plenty of channels that just make a bunch of biased statements based on shoddy evidence, but I think you can really feel that with every video you produce, a lot of research has gone into them and you emphasize how international politics is often a morally complicated field. So thank you for all your hard work!
Thank you so much for such a kind and supportive comment. I appreciate it enormously. It is easy to become discouraged. Unfortunately, we live in an age where people feel they can be abusive and that there’s no need to engage in polite and respectful debate. I fully accept that viewers will disagree with what I say, but I do try to make sure that my videos are well-researched and as balanced as possible. (Although I do take a clear position on certain issues.) I have always hoped the channel can provide a haven for serious discussion in world affairs. So, thank you again!
Rejoining the EU i cant see happening as giving up currency is i think is a step to far. The euro works for some countries but not others. If UK got opt out id say rejoining europe was acceptable to most.
38:40: I for one, am very pleased for a professor educating on UA-cam (and other academics that produce fact based information videos). I dislike clickbaity videos with so called "professional" video production with music, lots of stock images and little information per time unit in order to create feelings of "aw!", "oh!" and "wow!" I'm an old jerk that is too old for such things, so this is the kind of videos I prefer.
Thanks so much for the comment! I really appreciate it. It does sometimes feel like I can't compete against channels with high-end graphics, but I do like to think there is an audience out there for more information focused videos. (I always remember one channel that was talking about naval power, and just dumped in footage of soldiers running through a desert!)
Have you considered making a second channel for more casual and opinionated videos? Your point of view being someone who studies these topics as a professor is very interesting to me and I'm liking when you talk conversationally as well.
Thanks so much. I’ve been thinking about this. I love doing these types of videos as it does feel much more like me. The main videos have to be very structured and scripted. I’m not sure whether to do it as another channel, or perhaps diversify this one a little bit more. I’ve got a few other ideas I’m exploring. But hopefully I’ll be rolling out some changes in the next few months. :-)
Dear Professor, would it be possible in future to have parts of two (or more) states within the parts of the same territory. Like having different options of "insurance" that individuals with that territory pay taxes to one of them, where states would have agreement regarding the natural resources and investments regarding the infrastructure. Basically, having the 2 abstract layers, instead of just one, where the borders can have overlaps. Overlayed parts would have different constitutional rights obviously, since the national defense would have not to be triggered. And I see only a positive economic gain that people from that territory would get. Cheers!
The quality of your videos are very high, better than the vast majority of other political youtube channels. Please keep making videos as long as you enjoy it, the troll comments etc. are only a minority, most of us who watch you are genuinely interested, but are just a bit more quiet.
Thank you so much! As you can imagine, it does become a little wearing at times to face so much unpleasantness. Sadly, it’s a symptom of our current age. I’m more than happy to hear polite and friendly criticism or disagreements. But so much is just abusive. That said, there are also so many great comments that have helped me learn so much over the years. And leaving any sort of positive comment raises the tone and makes the atmosphere that little bit better. :-)
Hello James. Appreciate you videos, as always. I recently read your book Secession and State Creation. I loved it and am encouraging others on reading it. I was wondering if you have another book in the pipeline. All the best.
Economic cooperation making antagonism unthinkable does work between Germany and France but why did it fail so terribly with Germany and Russia? Was there not enough integration? Is it because of different political systems? Or a lack of geographical proximity?
I am strongly of the opinion that the UK will never be given an opt out to the Euro or ever closer union. I think an opt out to Schengen could potentially be agreed to. I am really not convinced that polling in favour of rejoining will continue if it becomes clear that it will be a much closer union than before brexit. I can't see unanimous support from the EU for rejoining for a generation after brexit i.e. 2040s. By that point the union have become much closer than now. I am sympathetic to Proffesor Ker-Lindsay but I think something along the lines of Norway and Switzerland is the limit.
Thanks so much. I really appreciate it. I certainly hope that people don’t always agree with me. :-) Polite and reasoned disagreement is great. It’s the abuse that becomes depressing and tiring.
Please don’t consider leaving James this is the most informative channel on international relations on UA-cam. The amount of work you put into each video must be very time consuming but not many you tubers have close to having 200k subscribers like you and I can see this steadily increasing in the coming years.
The question is what could replace it? Perhaps supranational political communities like the EU are the answer. But those are still built on nation states.
I dont think that animosity between countries stops to exist it just transforms. For instance steel and coal union brought together coal of Ruhr and iron in Alsace but there will be always a fight to who controls more markets in order to exchume economic / political power .
True, hence the founding of the Montan Union, later ECC that evolved in the European Union. The goal was for these countries to hug each other so tightly that they would no longer be able to fight.
Debate surrounding the Russo-Ukrainian War so frequently descends into whataboutism and selective statistics that it's become increasingly difficult to discuss, but for me it ultimately boils down to a question of faith in international institutions. It undeniably threatens the status quo, which in itself creates an environment in which more conflict can arise, but people's opinion on whether or not that very same international order is so rotten to the core that it is worth overthrowing despite the risks of further instability tend to range wildly depending on how much their country's been on the receiving end of the West pursuing its own interests under the protection of international law. The UN Charter is very different in theory and in practice, and when it comes to wars, the human cost seldom reflects the number of international laws broken. For many in third world countries, the UN's outrage at seemingly idealistic questions of borders and sovereignty can appear nearly insulting when many a Western nation need only funnel money through the remnants of their colonial infrastructure to incite conflicts that can claim the lives of millions without having to send over a single soldier. When it comes to Ukraine, the path to saving the most lives is evidently through peace talks, however the argument that the long term damage to international stability may lead to more wars that may cost far more lives is less easily dispelled, even if it means sacrificing an entire generation of Ukrainians for an international system that ultimately benefits Western security the most. Utilitarianism is most often a question of time, and the further forward one projects themself, the less certainty there is overall. In the case of geopolitics, this is amplified. Through an impending climate crisis into the mix and you have a mess. One could argue that the utmost priority is peace between superpowers regardless of the cost of their subordinates, simply so that cooperation on the climate crisis may allow for survival. But that isn't even on the table.
Thank you so much for such a great comment. I think you really do hit the nail on the head. I have often said that Western countries need to take a good hard look at their own actions and the role they have played in putting us where we are now. They ignored international institutions when they were at the height of their power and now that other powers are rising and are more inclined to ignore international institutions as well, they are not calling for respect for the international rule of law. I guess my position is that two wrongs don’t make a right and if we want to keep the basis for international stability we have to call out violations of international law where we see them. This is what I find depressing about wider international reactions to Ukraine. Many countries are taking a tepid position, arguing that the West has down bad things. Yes, maybe. But that’s not an excuse not to call out Russia.
I completely agree. The world would be very different if countries would be willing to consider a democratic and consensual process. Sadly, almost none do. I have often thought how different Europe would be today if this had been the case in Yugoslavia.
The nearest thing to an Anglophone Union that is possible is the Commonwealth. A quick look at its history will reveal that the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have different interests so arent always on the same page. Concentrating on close diplomatic relations and beating them at cricket, rugby and at the Olympics are what the UK or its member nations should aim for.
Great content. I like the Professor's assessments of the situation in the various conflicts. However, the Russian-Ukrainian war is perhaps overestimated in relation to the future of the world order. Military aggression and the modification of a country's borders by military force have also happened before. It's not that special, the world order based on rules, the inviolability of borders has only existed on paper until now. The most important conflicts: - 1962 China attacked Ladakh, India in 1962 and annexed Aksai Chin - 1967 Israel starts a war against Egypt and the surrounding Arab countries, and after the victorious six-day war annexed East Jerusalem, the surrounding Arab villages and the Golan Heights from Syria. The West Bank is still under Israeli occupation. - 1971 Indo-Pakistani war, unilateral secession of East Pakistan - 1974 Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - 1976 Morocco (and Mauritania) annexed Western Sahara - 1976 Indonesia invaded and annexed East Timor - 1977-1978 Ogaden war, Somalia wanted to take Ogaden from Ethiopia - 1992-1994 Armenia-Azerbaijan war, unilateral secession of Nagorno-Karabakh - 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serbia, occupation of Kosovo, finally unilateral secession in 2008 - 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the final, complete secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - 2014 Russian occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula Of the territorial disputes written above, only the situation of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and East Timor has been resolved and a final peace agreement has been reached. The issue of Ukraine is only one of many, but there is no doubt that the clash is the most intense here.
I agree on the importance of the Ukraine Russia war ending with Russia defeated. However, is working considering what is tearing apart the world order no less significant is the hypocrisy of the United States in the Gaza struggle. How do you expect other nations to reveal international law when the United States is so obviously in flagrant disregard of it? The United States pairing down International law just as steadily as Russia. Two years ago, I started out as the most ardent supporter of Ukraine that you will ever find. But after seeing the behavior of my country in the Middle East, I tell you I have my doubts. I simply cannot believe anything. My government tells me anymore. Put it this way, Whatever the government tells us on any matter, the only thing we can be sure of is that they are lying?
I think we need the keep Ukraine and the Middle East separate for all sorts of reasons. This is not to say that Palestine isn’t important. It is. It desperately needs to be resolved. But it is a very different issue, legally and politically, than Ukraine. But I do agree that the US has fallen short on Israel. It has consistently provided cover for it at the UN, even when every other state condemns it. Also, it is disappointing that the recent ICJ ruling on Israel’s annexation of large parts of the West Bank did not get more attention. It was a very significant decision.
@@JamesKerLindsay professor, even if I agree with you, which I only partly do, can you understand how that sounds to the world at large? By what measure are they different? Are both occupations not deemed illegal by the UN? Is one genocide qualitatively different than another? Can we rail against one set of atrocities while forgiving another? Is Gaza no less occupied than eastern Ukraine? There may be more geopolitically at stake in Ukraine, but by no measure are these situations morally and ethically different. Quite honestly, I simply don’t see any difference in the characters of Putin and Netanyahu.
Thanks. In that sense, you are right. They are occupations. And have been called out as such. I think the issue is that Ukraine is seen as a land grab against a sovereign state by another severing state and P5 Security Council member. Israel-Palestine is often seen as less straightforward because it is more a case of thwarted self-determination in a colonial context and because of the wars waged against Israel by the Palestinians and Arab states. I think there is a bit of residual “they brought it on themselves” in international circles. Also, I think the fact that Arab states aren’t even standing up for the Palestinians any longer is a major factor. If they won’t make a concerted effort to press the case, then I think many other countries wonder why they should. Of course, all this can be contested. Many would argue that Ukraine brought things on itself. But my point is that I think there are a lot of factors that shape the differing views on the issues, rightly or wrongly.
@@JamesKerLindsay well agree to disagree on some aspects but I would like to say I find your arguments very compelling on most subject matter, something I can rarely say about the great majority of youtube presenters. Rarely do I find myself wishing to continue a conversation but in this case, regardless, I will not presume to take up more of your time, I will end this interaction by saying you have a unique and worthwhile channel. Keep up the work of bringing some perspective of world at large to people who are badly in need of it. Most channels get my blood pressure through the roof, whereby yours brings about a more pensive mood. Θα τα πούμε στον άλλο κόσμο όπου ο χρόνος θα είναι Άφθονος.
Hello Prof. Thanks for your answers. Secession. With how difficult/impossible it is to gain secession whether democratically or otherwise, how do you think separatist groups in Africa can achieve secession?
Thanks. Great question. As things stand, it's next to impossible. Somaliland has an excellent case, but unless and until some African states choose to recognise it, the rest of the world won't. Although the AU has even acknowledged its case, African states are - somewhat understandably - super cautious about any border changes.
Professor I don't agree that you can use Armenia and Azerbaijan as any kind of successful example of cooperation or conflict resolution. Ultimately, what matters in geopolitics is power and leverage, and Armenia has none and so is being forced to make one concession after another to an aggressive dictatorship, aided by Turkey. I believe Armenia's statehood is at risk, and Russia's war and their recent tensions with Armenia might be catastrophic for Armenia in the end. This conflict also highlighted the issue with sticking to "International law" as if it is something sacred, in the place of e.g. morality. The ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabagh was justified because "it's Azerbaijan's territory", and no-one argued with that and so that is the status quo. In my opinion international law does not make sense as a concept without someone powerful enough to enforce it, but maybe that's just my cynical view. Thank you for your videos.
Professor, on the point of secession, do you consider the question of viability of the state that is being asked for? Do you not see through the separatist demand which is about ultimately merging with a neighboring country? In case of Donetsk and Luhansk, for example. The separatism seemed to be a mere facade for Russian expansionism.
The Trekkie in me can't wait for a unified world, but the mirror universe Trekkie in me fears that we need the Vulcans to show up so we have conquering them as a cause for unity.
Why do you think the US have restriction on weapon they provide to Ukraine? Since Russia does not seem to have real red line, is there a third party concern? Or could it be because they are afraid to create a precedent that could escalate other conflict?
They are afraid of mistake they did with Siviet Union, Iran, Afghanistan etc. Firstly provided them with weapons, and later on had to try and accommodate them...
11:20 My impression of both Scotland and Quebec is that the referendums were never going to pass, the government knew it, and it was a a risk free way to make an irritating opposition group shut up, rather than an actual chance of independence via referendum. Catalonia might vote yes on a referendum, and will never get one
I disagree. Scotland and Quebec got a free referendum without a government being a bitch or an a-hole. That's eventually what convinced enough people to stay in the union. Look at what Spain did... I'm pretty sure that now after the fluked Catalonian referendum, I have 0 doubts left they will vote independence in a "real" referendum. And that's exactly because of the reaction of Spain. The UK said oh you want a referendum, sure we'll give you one. Good luck, we'll have our own campaign too and we also promise not to spend more than you guys... And that's the way to handle these issues. The fact that a region wants independence means not that they are crazy nationalistic people. It (usually) means there is a (historic) problem within the nation or the problem with their status as a minority. If you handle them with respect and curtesy then you get what the UK had. Just look at the UK brexit referendum. What did the EU do? There was huge amount of pressure and foulmouthing from the EU side. I agree, brexit is pure idiocy. But I can't blame the Brits for doing it if you heard at people like Verhofstadt inside the EU talking about Farage and the whole Brexit idea.
I doubt that the UK will ever rejoin the EU, as it is constituted now. But as the EU is constituted now is not fit-for-purpose, and doesn't have an effective government structure, nor effective policies for regions to join or leave. As such it will be either grow by adopting more effective techniques, or stagnate and become less relevant in the future. It doesn't have the problem that the US has now with its current constitution that it effective enough that it can't be replaced but not effective enough that it improves over time. Instead, the EU has sufficient flaws that it possible to imagine a successor that removes the current flaws, that the UK or the rump successor states could join.
34:00 - it was so wonderful to hear you describe CANZUK as a crackpot idea. Speaking as an Australian, we have zero desire to re-enter some bizarre reincarnation of the British Empire
You mentioned you don’t think an anglophone economic union is viable, but what about a bilateral United Kingdom - United States trade agreement. The US and EU markets are comparable in size. Is that also not a viable option?
Not really. US most important trading partners are Canada, Mexico, and China comprising almost 43% of US trading activities. The UK accounts for ~3%. The UKs most important trading partners are still in Europe accounting for half of the UK's trading activites. Proximity to markets matters.
Hello all. I hope you are doing well. I haven’t done one of these Q&A videos in a while. I’d forgotten how much I enjoyed making them. As ever, I had more questions than I could manage. I hope to post another next week. In the meantime, thanks so much to everyone who contributed a question. And apologies to those I wasn’t able to cover this time.
It was a great video
When will you do a video discussing the intersectionality of medical freedoms and human rights?
🧐🤔
28:00 It's not a invasion. Rather it's a ongoing proxy war unfortunately.
💀💀💀
@@JamesKerLindsay I initially subscribed due to your objectivity... u seem to have strayed from that principle
@@alexk483 On Russia-Ukraine there is no room for ambiguity or “balance”. This is the most serious violation of international law of modern times. I make no apology for taking an extremely critical position on Russia’s actions. Russia needs to be defeated. However, there is a part II to this video (I will put it up next week) where I also point out Western failings and how the US and others have also eroded international law. Ultimately, my interest is in trying to preserve a system of international law and a UN that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity and maintains international order. A lot of countries have undermined those principles. But again, I’m not going to gloss over Russia’s actions in the name of some sort of ‘balance’.
I'd say Spain's crackdown on Catalan separatists has been pretty harsh for a democracy.
Thanks. Yes. Indeed. You’re completely right. That was exactly my point of hesitation when I was answering that question.
Spain's behavior with that situation was almost imperial rather than simple harsh.
When national security is concerned, all that bullsh*t goes out the window.
And EU was silent on that…
Although I sympathise with the Catalan cause, the fact is that support for independence at the moment is simply too low for that, it is barely at 50%. When Slovenia and Croatia sought independence, support for independance was around 90%. If the Catalan support was the same, the Spanish intervention would utterly fail! If I were a Catalan nationalist, I would choose a long-term strategy, to strengthen Catalonia's position within Spain and continue to promote the Catalan language, instead of seeking independence at this moment. But that's just my two cents.
Jim, as always, Professor.
I sincerely appreciate all that you have done; it has been incredibly beneficial. You've provided an amazing and in-depth analysis. It has been a fantastic experience for me as a student of politics and international relations.
I'm grateful, Prof.🎉
@@otngomot9929 Thank you so much! It had been a while since I had done one of these. I would certainly like to do them a bit more often. (Perhaps making them more thematic.)
BARILOCHE ARGENTINA
The Netherlands would love it if their caribbean islands would become independent. But they just keep refusing it and want to stay in the Dutch kingdom.
Why would they like for that to happen?
@@thespiritphoenix3798I’m not Dutch, but I’d imagine administering overseas territories with limited strategic value tends to weigh on the national balance sheet a little bit
@@thespiritphoenix3798 From what I know a lot of subsidies are given to those territories because they are underdeveloped. But their local politicians are also quite corrupt, so the money doesn't necessarily end up in the right place.
Go imperialist and bestow independence to them?
@@buddy1155 I don’t think that Dutch people care. There are 6 tiny islands, not bigger than a medium sized village. I certainly don’t mind. They can choose for independence if they like (at least Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten can), but they are really so small that the budget is not an issue at all.
You are one of the best 'explainers' on this platform, professor. I'm always interested in your breakdowns of very complex situations. You present things in a way that is very digestible, but is very professional and academic. Been cool to see how your content has evolved alongside the events you cover.
BARILOCHE ARGENTINA
The issue with Democratic secession is that is it becomes a demographic competition for power. Which can lead very quickly to ethnic cleansing if one side starts losing the demographic game.
It seems to me Federations or Confederations are almost always the better choice. With the understanding that succession simply isn’t an option.
You are right. Politicians would appear that would be more interested in their jobs, as any new state needs more parlamentarians than it needed before seccession, plus a government, than in the wellbeing of the people. But it is a case by case scenario. How viable would the new state be? Are the differences with the former sovereign state that insurmontable? What minorities will the new state have? Because you can enter a never ending game of breaking away of territories, until you end up with a city state 😮.
@@mimisor66
BARILOCHE ARGENTINA
Our mistake was ignoring or even approving US military interventionism. It reached point Russia was affraid of NATO invasion force in Ukraine which would leave them exposed to Regime Change operation or forced to start nuclear war. As we know curse of resource rich countries are Absentee Landlords, orforeign based owners of those natural resources, and that is why Russia cannot ever benefit if owners of their resources live abroad unconcerned by lives of 90% of Russian population.
Regarding legalised secession, it should have been codified when Kosovo was separated from Serbia, but nothing like that was done, probably because Palestinians would want to split from Israel and few Wedt European coutries have reguons which might want to split too?
Palestine is not a secessionist issue. It is a separate matter relating to decolonisation.
@@JamesKerLindsay I agree, but then was even more grave mistake not creating at least strong proposal for set of rules when oppressed minority can separate and go own way. I thought USA was opposed because it would affect Israel.
Professor Ker-Lindsay! I think for the Russian-Ukrainian war, an objective analysis should be made why Russia started a full scale war against its most populous and probably strongest neighbour from the former Soviet republics and did not do that against other weaker neighbours (only limited invasion of Georgia). It would be good to hear your professional opinion on this!
They had invaded a part of Ukraine in the past as well. I think the reason for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was they saw Ukraine quickly moving closer to the west and they feared that Ukraine would join nato or the EU, making future land grabs impossible. They thought the invasion would be quick and they planned to install a pro-Russia government similar to the current Belarus government.
@@mbayatab4326 A democratic, prosperous Ukraine, member of EU and NATO would be a mortal danger to the Russian type of government. Whether the czaris, communist or putinist Russia, the model is allways the same. A tiny elite robbs the country and supresses the population. Russia could be one of the most prosperous countries of the world but is not. The average income in Russia is about 14 000 $ in Portugal it is about 20 000$. For Russian this is the only way of doing politics they know, a better way to do things would be runinous.
We were promised Russia’s Economy would collapse, become isolated and Putin removed. Nothing of this has happened. I am convinced neocons in the US wanted/ provoked this war. I do not believe the US cares about Ukraine, this is all about weakening Russia, from their perspective.
I think the idea was that Georgia is much more homogeneous nationally and even if they completely overran it, it would be just another Afghanistan. They simply underestimated the true feelings of Ukrainians, who have much more national conscience than anyone expected.
@@m.walther6434 Russia, Ukraine Belarus and Poland and other states after the fall of Soviet Union were in disastrous state and corruption and oligarchs from the west rolled in and made people who would never be rich, billionaires. Putin cracked down on corruption massively, so did Belarus and Poland. Ukraine simply did not know how to do it. Ukraine was the biggest underperformer in the history of modern times in Europe. When Russia focused on economy, diversification, balanced the budget.
Belarusian growth was for years like 20%. Ukraine simply stagnated because it only relies on cheap gas from Russia, until Russia said they will not subsidise it any more, corruption was to such level that western companies did not want to do business there as people stole money left and right so instead they invested in Russia, Poland etc. Ukraine for years spent time developing “ symbols” some logos , some idea whom the want to be as a new country, they were not one nation, different languages , different perception of history. It was hard and they did not have anyone like Putin but very poor leaders. Crimea Donbas, had no investement and looked worse than in Soviet times.
It's funny how the West defends Ukrainian territorial integrity while actively undermining ours in Serbia with the Kosovo issue.
Watch the next video. I discuss this.
The west don't care about Serbia's territorial integrity but neither does Russia about Ukraine's now so in the end it's the same thing.
It’s not funny for the Kosovars desperate for liberation from Serbian oppression
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 with the geopolitical winds changing direction I wouldn't be certain major conflict may be just around the corner Serbs will never give up kosovo.
If you think about the dynamics of each case, you will see it's not the same.
But if you think Russia is the big brother of Serbia - first of all Serbia is older then Russia with it's on rich culture. Secondly read what Dejan Beric has to say. He reported that Serbian volunteers get treated like cattle and get called "gypsies". So there is you respect you get from Russia.
And if things played out differently in the 90ies for Yugoslavia. And if Serbia in good terms wanted to join the EU - I would suggest Russia would pretty much leverage Kosovo to hinder Serbia's path to EU-integration.
On the failing states question, I think it’s also worth keeping in mind that new states go through a long period of turmoil before they settle
Welcome back Professor, Jim 🎉🎉
Pertaining to the first question: have you not become more convinced that the West’s (largely US’s) meddling in other country’s societies and politics has created the current situation that will unleash instability and makes an argument for states becoming nuclear armed? Is the no indictment of the decades of upending various administrations/regimes.?
Other creators' 41 minute video - "Ughh! How am I gonna get through it?!"
Prof. James' 41 minute video - "Awww... Over so soon?? DAMN!!"
BARILOCHE ARGENTINA
That thumbnail picture is diabolically wild.
😂😂😂
At least he's trying to fit in his own country.
@@rennor3498😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@rennor3498 Brindianistanish culture 😃
@@Zacharoni4085 ahh its called Brindianistandeshi culture. Get it right
@@asirnewazkhan4172 Yeah, I just saw the news. My previous comment is outdated
The redrawing of borders in Europe is not a new thing. Most recently NATO intervened to redraw the borders of Serbia.
After a string of bloody wars, and genocidal politics.
Russia set the precedent in 1992 when they invaded Georgia to support ethnic separatists in Abkhazia and Alania-South Ossetia
Putin and Russian tv often talk about conquering and annexing the whole of Ukraine, and they’ve taken more than just Donetsk and Donbas they want Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to maintain a land bridge to Crimea.
@@m.walther6434the Serbs were genocided by those exact people's you are referring to during WW2... So according to that logic they should have been allowed to redraw borders
Amazing work again James, love this format which shows your own views and thoughts on the future. As a British citizen, I also sincerely hope the political climate in the UK shifts to allow for a rejoining as soon as possible. More pressure is needed on the new government to do what is right for the country and the continent. I now live in Germany and I do feel a valuable voice has been lost from the decision makers in Brussels
Canzuk exists, it's called "the Commonwealth". It would make more sense for an independent Quebec to join the EU than to create a new but redundant Anglo trade union.
The Commonwealth is nothing more than a culture forum with widely differing politics and goals
CANZUK + the US exists as Five Eyes
@@stephenchappell7512
BRICS
All four members of the proposed Canzuk will soon be in the CPTPP and all have Youth Mobility agreements with each other. I am not sure what the benefit of deeper co-operation than that would be considering that the four countries are in three different parts of the world.
6 weeks later and I've finally got around to watching this! Keep up the great work!
Love when we are treated with a long forum Q&A! Thank you for all of your work and thought provoking discussions professor!!
@@jacobdavison93 Thanks so much. It had been ages since I did one of these. I really do enjoy making them.
I'm glad you came to UA-cam. I really appreciate your channel.
My favorite geopolitical teacher is James Ker-Lindsay.
Thank you! :-)
‘’ Global Britain’,’’ you got to laugh, Britain doesn’t have the empire anymore, it’s more Lilliput with Lilliputian armed forces to match.
Weird that you view being a global country as havinf and empire and large armed forces...
I think even the "global Britain" crowd would cringe at that. No one wants that.
@xanderreyno These are slogans and buzz words that hide detail and facts. The UK hasn't achieved a net economic gain from leaving the EU. Also every Farage and UKIP I met used global Britain in a way that is out of touch with reality, many I spoke to have a imperial attitude but don't even realise it.
Great channel. I feel privileged to live in a time where such quality information is free and 1 click away. Greetings from Europe
Post scriptum: don't mind the haters/bots/trolls. The impact you have by educating open minded people is far greater than anything those bots can do. After all, haters gonna hate. Agreeing or disgreeing with the narratives they hold in their heads does not change how they feel. But if you can educate or even just nudge "normal" people towards an unbiased and more educated view of the world, than you have done an great deed by changing minds, which is the basis for the evolution of society and progress of humanity as a whole. It might be 100k, 10k, maybe 1k people, but it still is thousands of minds being changed, not to mention they will spread this knowledge with others.
Very balanced and nice comment!
BRICS
Thank You for your hard work! 🤗❤️
Hey James,
Don't know if you'll catch this but I never comment and just absorb the content. Keep going with it as long as you can. It is fantastic hearing second opinions as I don't get to have these 'conversations' with anyone else in my waking life. I appreciate it.
Thanks.
Thanks so much! I know a lot of viewers feel uncomfortable commenting, for whatever reason, but it is always appreciated. :-)
On the state failing trend question, you mention the falling out of fashion of the responsibility to protect. This ties back in with the Russo-Ukraine war though in that it was explicitly the responsibility to protect that Putin invoked in the invasion. So even if it wasn't out of favor by 2022 I don't see how the West can ever rely on that justification for intervention again without looking like total hypocrits on Ukraine to the Global South. Not that the West has usually listened to the South in the past but the balance of power economically in the world is now changing fast and so that is becoming a bigger issue.
I’m not sure I see your point?
as always thank you again...I forwarded this to my father and he's perhaps your newest fan.
Thank you so much, Micah! That’s incredibly kind. I really appreciate it. I hope all is well at your end.
Welcome back professor ❤
BRICS
Thank you Prof for sharing your expertise. It is a genuinely a learning experience.
Thank you so much. I really enjoy doing these types of videos. I should try to do it more often.
I do like and watched constantly, you're videos and content stories, history, Geopolitical analysis is very impressive, keep jumping on the most interesting global agenda's, thank you very much Professor James ker-Lindsay.
It is an outrage and totally unacceptable that Russia dared to behave like the USA and Britain lol
One of my favourite things about your channel is how you're engaging in discussions in the comments, few youtube channels your size does that. But I completely understand if the trolls and bots are getting too annoying. Thanks for all your hard work!
I love this more informal style of video! Keep it up!
In a post-war world, should Crimea, Donetsk, Lukansk, etc. have a right to secede from whoever ends up holding the territory? Is there a neutral rule here or do we care only about whether we get along with the parent state at the moment?
What an informative video! Thank you for making one of these professor!
Thanks so much. I really must try to do more of them. It had been too long. And I really do enjoy the chance to speak a little more freely. :-)
Can we have a referendum please whether we’re not we want Britain to be global because I don’t. I want us to be Switzerland.
I think the failure to fully develop relations with Russia was the result of the geopolitical hold the US held over Europe, and to some extent continues to. There were numerous examples of Russia under Putin trying to align itself with the west, particularly after September 2001 only for them to be rebuffed. My opinion is that the ultimate cause of this was the US trying to continually prove themselves as having "won" the cold war and it has resulted in them creating another one !!
I vividly remember seeing on TV Hillary Clinton coming to Moscow to talk about a reset in US-Russian relations and Lavrov just laughing in her face. You should find Russian news from 2001 and on. You would be amazed at the lack of any desire on the part of Russia to align itself with the West, no matter how hard the West tries.
In 1991 the Russian Empire died, the last European Empire, by the way. This spawned a lot of wars, which is quite usual when Empires die. WW I and II as examples.
We were promised Russia’s Economy would collapse, become isolated and Putin removed. Nothing of this has happened. I am convinced neocons in the US wanted/ provoked this war. I do not believe the US cares about Ukraine, this is all about weakening Russia, from their perspective.
yeah, I don't think France and Germany critiquing the US invasion of Iraq was exactly evidence of the US's control over Europe. And there was in fact plenty of cooperation with Russia after 2001. With that aforementioned invasion pretty indicative of the fact that the US didn't really care about Russia or China as their adversaries throughout the 2000's, and was pretty much entirely focused on the war on terror. So if it is due to the US "winning" the cold war, well they did, and Russia being salty doesn't justify murder.
@@EamonCoyle agree! On top of that There is proof the US wanted this (proxy) war. Nobody seems to know US provoked a coup d’ detat in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland was caught on tape… ” f** the EU”
This is a great channel with very high-quality content, a rare thing of very high value!
Thank you so much! :-)
EXCELLENT VIDEO---THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE TIME TO GIVE YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS IN THIS VIDEO.
Thanks so much. It had been a long time since I did one of these.
2:20 and onwards.... it is amazing to watch you be so open and honest about how you feel about RUS-UKR. Also thanks for the introduction of a new concept to me - a "systemic war". Had not heard the term, and of course that is what both WW1 and WW2 were now I think about it.
Both wars, WW I and II where in fact imperial as well as anti-imperial wars. This poses systemic frictions and problems.
For Russia it is easy to argue because the so called Western World did not stick to it own proclamed values. Catalonia, Scotland, Ireland, Balkan War’s etc. The West showed a lot of hipokricy in regard to its own problems.
Russia also opposes secession. Just consider Chechnya. And Britain gave Scotland a vote on independence. Russia has never offered any of its territories such a vote. And almost certainly never will. There is no justification for what Russia has done.
@@JamesKerLindsay 😂😂😂
I agree CANZUK can't replace the EU in the sense that intra-CANZUK trade will not eclipse UK-EU trade in sheer volume, but that's no reason treaties and agreements under a CANZUK aegis are a bad idea. I'd love to see CANZUK labour mobility for example.
Very interesting conversation, thank you, professor Ker- Lindsay
Thank you so much!
Professor I have to ask about your position that the war in Ukraine is a profound attack on the international order. Can it truly be considered that ground shaking when America was given a free pass to invade Iraq and Afghanistan under extremely dubious allegations and to completely failed ends? The invasion is certainly terrible and a greatly destabilizing event but so were the American invasions.
On a follow up question do you see their being a viable path to victory for Russia that is anything short of a massive mobilization effort on their side, involving hundreds of thousands if not millions of soldiers be mobilized?
Allegations was "dubious" only in case of Iraq, and even there, no one tried to partition or annex this country... So no, those are not comparable cases.
@@imcbocianKurdish state in northern.iraq you bias is obvious
He won't answer that! I'm still waiting for the Holy euRoPEaN Empire to pompously sanction the US for illegally occupying parts of Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Syria, Iraq, Mauritius (Diego Garcia), Serbia (Kosovo) and China (Taiwan, where troops have recently been sent) and so on AT THIS VERY MOMENT! but they won't.
🎯 On point. The U.S with U.K following and it's weapon N.A.T.O opened the door to the collapse of the order , they claim to love but don't often practice.
You're delusional if you thought there was ever a serious attempt to carve out kurdistan. Time and time again the west has given up on, backstabbed and let the kirds be oppressed by their own countries@@jkmcgregor7797
These Q&A videos are just the best.
Thank you so much! I really should try to do them a bit more often.
Thank you.
Regarding the post-war EU/Russia relations, I think you are starting from a point which makes an error of fact. You said that Putin came to power and then West./Russia relations fell apart. In reality US/Russian relations had collapsed two years prior in 1998 and the EU had returned to a sort of mid-Cold-War policy of trying to be dependant on both sides in order not to be dragged into a war.
In fact the Rand Publican entitled "Extending Russia" noted (correctly) that relations between NATO and Russia had degraded so much under Yeltsin that Putin was initially seen as something of a relief.
Now if this is the case it is hard to see relations between the EU and Russia depending on Russia going back to the Yeltsin years. You have noted correctly that there were mistakes here and I assume you are referring to NATO mistakes. In essence Russia has always been willing to cooperate as long as it is on equal terms. That was true under Yeltsin. It is true under Putin. It will probably be true under whoever succeeds Putin. But what this also means is that Russia will not (and never has) really kowtowed to hegemonic power. Even under Yeltsin, Russia saw itself (and conducted itself) as a great power and demanded respect, and when Russia was sidelined in issues relating to Serbia and Kosovo, we saw relations spiral downward.
I think whatever continuity we have between the final years of Yeltsin (from 1998 onward) and Putin we can expect to see on Putin's successor regardless of any other political leanings. So in this way, I am not sure what it means for Russia to reform.
Hi Prof Ker-Lindsay, could you talk about the rules based international order, who started it, what is it, and how is it preserved? When nuclear armed superpowers violate it, as has happened a number of times this century, does this make it less tenable or viable?
The US and its sidekicks started using the term "rules-based order" relatively recently, presumably because they got tired of the UN Charter. The latter prohibits, for example, the uninvited US military occupation of a large area of Syria.
By contrast the "rules-based order" means whatever the US want it to mean, because those "rules" aren't written down.
@SydWalker3k Even if the rules were written down, would they respect them? Take NATO as an example, they were talking about expanding NATO to Asia. Do they remember what the A in NATO stand for? Do they care what the Article 10 says about expansion of NATO members?
A good example of your last paragraph is Gaza and Xinjiang. Blinken and other US officials have been asked several time why there is no gen0cide going on in Gaza but there is in Xinjiang. They basically cannot give a straight and convincing answer.
It is the term that US started to use when they were breaking international law, together with their Western friends, they concluded its better to use it and it means: the rules we set in the moment and none can accuse us of breaking the international law because it’s ‘ rule based order”. Everyone outside the West, interestingly knows what it means, because they have felt it.
@olivka7560 If you are going to chip in with comments, try to make them accurate. The rules based international order refers to the system set up after the Second World War. It is a system Russia, via the USSR, helped to create. It is not a Western construct. It is the UN and the body of international law created since then.
I take a different view, Prof. The rules-based international order is nowhere to be found in UN documentation. It is not a benign synonym for international law but is used as a alternative exclusively by Western powers to provide a legalistic gloss on the actions they took/take in defiance of the UN - bombing of Belgrade 1999, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and so on. It can be used to defend Netanyahu from ICC charges but attack Putin for same.
Thanks for your insights and work!
Thanks! Really appreciated. :-)
You’re my Friday evening dinner friend. I don’t really have anyone else, so I’m happy to have found your channel. I also was fascinated with politics as a kid. My grandfather always had the evening news on and we would watch while my grandmother was fixing dinner. My dad would get back after work and I would tell him all about what he missed, probably around the 2nd Reagan election. My grandfather was a good centrist, and that’s pretty much where I am today.
My understanding about Ukrainian nukes is that the launch codes were held in Moscow and even if the Ukrainians held onto the missiles, they couldn't launch them but perhaps they could repurpose the war heads, but that is speculation given the previous Ukrainian leaders from the 90s and early 00s.
They were not Kiev's weapons to repurpose. Any attempt to do so would be theft and it would make sense for Russia and/or even the West to act militarily to prevent that, because of how serious the threat of proliferation would have been.
@basanttyagi7516 I agree with you, but the word theft in the context of Russians' land grab is ironic
You’re absolutely correct on your assessment of Russian ambitions
Helford Mackinder's '''heartlandTheory''' predicted the US behaviour towards Europe/Asia
It was a bogus theory but somehow landed at the correct conclusion. 😂
@@VTh-f5x isn't thee conclusion more relevant than the maybe convoluted reasoning ? After all it was done by a Diplomat who of course cannot think in a straight line
Great video, learnt a lot. Agree on CANZUK, a complete joke & wet dream from the Brexiteers, deluded fantasy.
I'm now picturing a Leichtensteinian successionist movement, something like what I see in the United States in which some members of the local First Baptist Church don't like the hymns being chosen and leave to form the Second Baptist Church.
Regarding France and Germany, Robert Schuman's Victory Day speech in 1950 (the one which announced the ECSC and which Europe Day commemorates) said the goal was to make war between France and Germany "not merely unthinkable but materially impossible." And it wasn't just about economic links but rather specifically denying both countries full national control over munitions supply chains.
Economic connections are one thing but when a country cannot control their own coal and steel industries, when they cannot control their currency (and hence public debts), then they cannot go onto a full war footing. This means that while the EU is armed, it cannot really go to war in the sense of WWI or WWII, nor can any EU member state. I think this also is a major component of the reaction to the Ukraine war in Europe.
It's an oversimplification. The real reason a war didn't happen again was that Germany amd Japan were occupied and re-educated.
Thank you for this! I really enjoyed it. It was good to see the man behind the presentation. In the past, I've disagreed with some of your views, especially on secession (and International Politics would be incredibly dull if we ever did come to a unified consensus on that). However, I found it very useful to hear you reasoning for your views, and the added nuance. I found it most persuasive.
You also gave me a bit more hope for a British EU reunion (or Brunion, if you will). Or at least co-operation. I'm of the millennial generation, but my parents are old enough to remember joining in the first place. One thing that I have noticed is a difference in identity when it comes to Europe. I was born and brought up in the EU. I've lived and worked there. So, like many will say "I'm Scottish. But I'm also British", I've always felt "I'm British. But I'm also European".
There are many aspects of identity, rule of law, religion etc. that we have in common with Europe, but not with say The USA or Japan, two Western nations that Britain is otherwise very close to. So the impact of Brexit on myself and many of my co-generationals has been quite traumatic; in a way, not dissimilar to an involuntary secession. I identify as European, but I am no longer a citizen of my parent nation.
So, naturally, I am drawn to any information that suggests that rejoining is at least an option. However, most media presents this as an impossibility (or something to discuss in 30 years time or so), which is quite disheartening. (You also get those very negative comments from some people saying "If you wanted to be in Europe, you shouldn't have left. We don't need or want you", which ignores the nuance of the situation, or how divided British identity has become nowadays). So, again, I found your take to be much more optimistic and thought provoking. Thank you.
Thanks so much. Part of the reason I like doing these videos is that they give me a chance to explain my views and reasoning a little more clearly. I enjoy doing the usual videos, but they are highly scripted. This is a little more free-flowing and allows me to be more myself. :-)
I am completely with you on Brexit., Britain and the EU. I always describe myself as British and European. (I am actually a mix of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and a touch of Australian!) I really do hope that we can and will rejoin sooner rather than later, buit it won't be a quick process. And, sadly, Starmer seems determined to be super cautious on any closer alignment, even though we both know that it would do wonders for the economy. As it happens, I am now living back in the EU and so I see the mess Brexit has caused even more acutely. And it made moving back to Cyprus, where I lived for many years when I was younger, so much more difficult.
Thank you for taking a stand on Ukraine. This means more coming from someone like you who tries to stay neutral and unbiased.
Neutral ?? There is a reason why most of the worlds population support Russia (BRICS++++). They are fed up with US/Western wars, coups, assasinations, sanctions etc.
freedom for england from the uk
30:15 ... "years later doing the channel."
And rapidly approaching 200K subscribers ... Not too bad at all ... 💪
Rather successful ... I dare say ... Professor ... 👏👏👏
I appreciate the work you put into this channel!
Thank you! :-)
One of the best things about these kind of platforms is the fact that we can interact with the content creators but unfortunately a few idiots ruin it. It makes me wary of commenting myself so I can imagine it must be very frustrating for the creators.
You are doing so well prof. Thank you very much for educating and opening my mind on so many issues
As a response to your answer to the last question, I just want to mention how much I appreciate your videos here on UA-cam. There are plenty of channels that just make a bunch of biased statements based on shoddy evidence, but I think you can really feel that with every video you produce, a lot of research has gone into them and you emphasize how international politics is often a morally complicated field.
So thank you for all your hard work!
Thank you so much for such a kind and supportive comment. I appreciate it enormously. It is easy to become discouraged. Unfortunately, we live in an age where people feel they can be abusive and that there’s no need to engage in polite and respectful debate. I fully accept that viewers will disagree with what I say, but I do try to make sure that my videos are well-researched and as balanced as possible. (Although I do take a clear position on certain issues.) I have always hoped the channel can provide a haven for serious discussion in world affairs. So, thank you again!
Rejoining the EU i cant see happening as giving up currency is i think is a step to far. The euro works for some countries but not others. If UK got opt out id say rejoining europe was acceptable to most.
A great Q&A and thank you for choosing my question! It was a very interesting answer :)
Thanks so much for such a great question! And I loved the user name. :-)
38:40: I for one, am very pleased for a professor educating on UA-cam (and other academics that produce fact based information videos). I dislike clickbaity videos with so called "professional" video production with music, lots of stock images and little information per time unit in order to create feelings of "aw!", "oh!" and "wow!" I'm an old jerk that is too old for such things, so this is the kind of videos I prefer.
Thanks so much for the comment! I really appreciate it. It does sometimes feel like I can't compete against channels with high-end graphics, but I do like to think there is an audience out there for more information focused videos. (I always remember one channel that was talking about naval power, and just dumped in footage of soldiers running through a desert!)
Have you considered making a second channel for more casual and opinionated videos? Your point of view being someone who studies these topics as a professor is very interesting to me and I'm liking when you talk conversationally as well.
Thanks so much. I’ve been thinking about this. I love doing these types of videos as it does feel much more like me. The main videos have to be very structured and scripted. I’m not sure whether to do it as another channel, or perhaps diversify this one a little bit more. I’ve got a few other ideas I’m exploring. But hopefully I’ll be rolling out some changes in the next few months. :-)
Dear Professor,
would it be possible in future to have parts of two (or more) states within the parts of the same territory.
Like having different options of "insurance" that individuals with that territory pay taxes to one of them, where states would have agreement regarding the natural resources and investments regarding the infrastructure.
Basically, having the 2 abstract layers, instead of just one, where the borders can have overlaps.
Overlayed parts would have different constitutional rights obviously, since the national defense would have not to be triggered. And I see only a positive economic gain that people from that territory would get.
Cheers!
Thank you for everything you do professor. Ignore these fools in the comment section. What you do matters and helps
The quality of your videos are very high, better than the vast majority of other political youtube channels. Please keep making videos as long as you enjoy it, the troll comments etc. are only a minority, most of us who watch you are genuinely interested, but are just a bit more quiet.
Thank you so much! As you can imagine, it does become a little wearing at times to face so much unpleasantness. Sadly, it’s a symptom of our current age. I’m more than happy to hear polite and friendly criticism or disagreements. But so much is just abusive. That said, there are also so many great comments that have helped me learn so much over the years. And leaving any sort of positive comment raises the tone and makes the atmosphere that little bit better. :-)
Hello James. Appreciate you videos, as always. I recently read your book Secession and State Creation. I loved it and am encouraging others on reading it. I was wondering if you have another book in the pipeline. All the best.
Economic cooperation making antagonism unthinkable does work between Germany and France but why did it fail so terribly with Germany and Russia?
Was there not enough integration? Is it because of different political systems? Or a lack of geographical proximity?
I am strongly of the opinion that the UK will never be given an opt out to the Euro or ever closer union. I think an opt out to Schengen could potentially be agreed to. I am really not convinced that polling in favour of rejoining will continue if it becomes clear that it will be a much closer union than before brexit. I can't see unanimous support from the EU for rejoining for a generation after brexit i.e. 2040s. By that point the union have become much closer than now. I am sympathetic to Proffesor Ker-Lindsay but I think something along the lines of Norway and Switzerland is the limit.
I don’t always agree with you, but definitely appreciate your videos. Keep up the good work!
Thanks so much. I really appreciate it. I certainly hope that people don’t always agree with me. :-) Polite and reasoned disagreement is great. It’s the abuse that becomes depressing and tiring.
Great video professor!
Please don’t consider leaving James this is the most informative channel on international relations on UA-cam. The amount of work you put into each video must be very time consuming but not many you tubers have close to having 200k subscribers like you and I can see this steadily increasing in the coming years.
Really enjoyed this one, insightful and interesting thoughts as always
The concept of nation states/nationalism is the cause of much conflict. Is it time to rethink the model of nation states?
The question is what could replace it? Perhaps supranational political communities like the EU are the answer. But those are still built on nation states.
Thanks for the video
I dont think that animosity between countries stops to exist it just transforms. For instance steel and coal union brought together coal of Ruhr and iron in Alsace but there will be always a fight to who controls more markets in order to exchume economic / political power .
True, hence the founding of the Montan Union, later ECC that evolved in the European Union. The goal was for these countries to hug each other so tightly that they would no longer be able to fight.
Another great Video Thanks
Thank you!
Great video. Kudos!
Thank you so much!
Debate surrounding the Russo-Ukrainian War so frequently descends into whataboutism and selective statistics that it's become increasingly difficult to discuss, but for me it ultimately boils down to a question of faith in international institutions. It undeniably threatens the status quo, which in itself creates an environment in which more conflict can arise, but people's opinion on whether or not that very same international order is so rotten to the core that it is worth overthrowing despite the risks of further instability tend to range wildly depending on how much their country's been on the receiving end of the West pursuing its own interests under the protection of international law. The UN Charter is very different in theory and in practice, and when it comes to wars, the human cost seldom reflects the number of international laws broken. For many in third world countries, the UN's outrage at seemingly idealistic questions of borders and sovereignty can appear nearly insulting when many a Western nation need only funnel money through the remnants of their colonial infrastructure to incite conflicts that can claim the lives of millions without having to send over a single soldier. When it comes to Ukraine, the path to saving the most lives is evidently through peace talks, however the argument that the long term damage to international stability may lead to more wars that may cost far more lives is less easily dispelled, even if it means sacrificing an entire generation of Ukrainians for an international system that ultimately benefits Western security the most. Utilitarianism is most often a question of time, and the further forward one projects themself, the less certainty there is overall. In the case of geopolitics, this is amplified. Through an impending climate crisis into the mix and you have a mess. One could argue that the utmost priority is peace between superpowers regardless of the cost of their subordinates, simply so that cooperation on the climate crisis may allow for survival. But that isn't even on the table.
Thank you so much for such a great comment. I think you really do hit the nail on the head. I have often said that Western countries need to take a good hard look at their own actions and the role they have played in putting us where we are now. They ignored international institutions when they were at the height of their power and now that other powers are rising and are more inclined to ignore international institutions as well, they are not calling for respect for the international rule of law. I guess my position is that two wrongs don’t make a right and if we want to keep the basis for international stability we have to call out violations of international law where we see them. This is what I find depressing about wider international reactions to Ukraine. Many countries are taking a tepid position, arguing that the West has down bad things. Yes, maybe. But that’s not an excuse not to call out Russia.
Norway seceded from Sweden without a war. Imagine if others would act the same way and we wouldn't need to have wars over plots of land.
I completely agree. The world would be very different if countries would be willing to consider a democratic and consensual process. Sadly, almost none do. I have often thought how different Europe would be today if this had been the case in Yugoslavia.
Yes the see-eye-eh would very much like that.
@@VTh-f5x Only the CIA? Who wouldn't?
@@cyberfunk3793 the people who will perish in separatist movements won't like it.
@@VTh-f5x What are you talking about?? How is anyone going to perish in any separatist movements if there are no wars?
The nearest thing to an Anglophone Union that is possible is the Commonwealth. A quick look at its history will reveal that the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have different interests so arent always on the same page. Concentrating on close diplomatic relations and beating them at cricket, rugby and at the Olympics are what the UK or its member nations should aim for.
I find your videos really interesting. i hope you keep doing this!
Great content. I like the Professor's assessments of the situation in the various conflicts. However, the Russian-Ukrainian war is perhaps overestimated in relation to the future of the world order.
Military aggression and the modification of a country's borders by military force have also happened before. It's not that special, the world order based on rules, the inviolability of borders has only existed on paper until now. The most important conflicts:
- 1962 China attacked Ladakh, India in 1962 and annexed Aksai Chin
- 1967 Israel starts a war against Egypt and the surrounding Arab countries, and after the victorious six-day war annexed East Jerusalem, the surrounding Arab villages and the Golan Heights from Syria. The West Bank is still under Israeli occupation.
- 1971 Indo-Pakistani war, unilateral secession of East Pakistan
- 1974 Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
- 1976 Morocco (and Mauritania) annexed Western Sahara
- 1976 Indonesia invaded and annexed East Timor
- 1977-1978 Ogaden war, Somalia wanted to take Ogaden from Ethiopia
- 1992-1994 Armenia-Azerbaijan war, unilateral secession of Nagorno-Karabakh
- 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serbia, occupation of Kosovo, finally unilateral secession in 2008
- 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the final, complete secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
- 2014 Russian occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula
Of the territorial disputes written above, only the situation of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and East Timor has been resolved and a final peace agreement has been reached. The issue of Ukraine is only one of many, but there is no doubt that the clash is the most intense here.
Interesting points that you made. Furthermore, Aksai Chin was complicated by the reality that Pakistan went along with the Chinese claim.
I agree on the importance of the Ukraine Russia war ending with Russia defeated. However, is working considering what is tearing apart the world order no less significant is the hypocrisy of the United States in the Gaza struggle. How do you expect other nations to reveal international law when the United States is so obviously in flagrant disregard of it? The United States pairing down International law just as steadily as Russia. Two years ago, I started out as the most ardent supporter of Ukraine that you will ever find. But after seeing the behavior of my country in the Middle East, I tell you I have my doubts. I simply cannot believe anything. My government tells me anymore. Put it this way, Whatever the government tells us on any matter, the only thing we can be sure of is that they are lying?
I think we need the keep Ukraine and the Middle East separate for all sorts of reasons. This is not to say that Palestine isn’t important. It is. It desperately needs to be resolved. But it is a very different issue, legally and politically, than Ukraine. But I do agree that the US has fallen short on Israel. It has consistently provided cover for it at the UN, even when every other state condemns it. Also, it is disappointing that the recent ICJ ruling on Israel’s annexation of large parts of the West Bank did not get more attention. It was a very significant decision.
@@JamesKerLindsay professor, even if I agree with you, which I only partly do, can you understand how that sounds to the world at large? By what measure are they different? Are both occupations not deemed illegal by the UN? Is one genocide qualitatively different than another? Can we rail against one set of atrocities while forgiving another? Is Gaza no less occupied than eastern Ukraine? There may be more geopolitically at stake in Ukraine, but by no measure are these situations morally and ethically different. Quite honestly, I simply don’t see any difference in the characters of Putin and Netanyahu.
@@JamesKerLindsay but once again I thank you for taking the time to reply
Thanks. In that sense, you are right. They are occupations. And have been called out as such. I think the issue is that Ukraine is seen as a land grab against a sovereign state by another severing state and P5 Security Council member. Israel-Palestine is often seen as less straightforward because it is more a case of thwarted self-determination in a colonial context and because of the wars waged against Israel by the Palestinians and Arab states. I think there is a bit of residual “they brought it on themselves” in international circles. Also, I think the fact that Arab states aren’t even standing up for the Palestinians any longer is a major factor. If they won’t make a concerted effort to press the case, then I think many other countries wonder why they should. Of course, all this can be contested. Many would argue that Ukraine brought things on itself. But my point is that I think there are a lot of factors that shape the differing views on the issues, rightly or wrongly.
@@JamesKerLindsay well agree to disagree on some aspects but I would like to say I find your arguments very compelling on most subject matter, something I can rarely say about the great majority of youtube presenters. Rarely do I find myself wishing to continue a conversation but in this case, regardless, I will not presume to take up more of your time, I will end this interaction by saying you have a unique and worthwhile channel. Keep up the work of bringing some perspective of world at large to people who are badly in need of it. Most channels get my blood pressure through the roof, whereby yours brings about a more pensive mood. Θα τα πούμε στον άλλο κόσμο όπου ο χρόνος θα είναι Άφθονος.
Hello Prof. Thanks for your answers. Secession. With how difficult/impossible it is to gain secession whether democratically or otherwise, how do you think separatist groups in Africa can achieve secession?
Thanks. Great question. As things stand, it's next to impossible. Somaliland has an excellent case, but unless and until some African states choose to recognise it, the rest of the world won't. Although the AU has even acknowledged its case, African states are - somewhat understandably - super cautious about any border changes.
Professor I don't agree that you can use Armenia and Azerbaijan as any kind of successful example of cooperation or conflict resolution. Ultimately, what matters in geopolitics is power and leverage, and Armenia has none and so is being forced to make one concession after another to an aggressive dictatorship, aided by Turkey. I believe Armenia's statehood is at risk, and Russia's war and their recent tensions with Armenia might be catastrophic for Armenia in the end. This conflict also highlighted the issue with sticking to "International law" as if it is something sacred, in the place of e.g. morality. The ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabagh was justified because "it's Azerbaijan's territory", and no-one argued with that and so that is the status quo. In my opinion international law does not make sense as a concept without someone powerful enough to enforce it, but maybe that's just my cynical view. Thank you for your videos.
Great quality content.
Thank you so much! :-)
Professor, on the point of secession, do you consider the question of viability of the state that is being asked for? Do you not see through the separatist demand which is about ultimately merging with a neighboring country? In case of Donetsk and Luhansk, for example. The separatism seemed to be a mere facade for Russian expansionism.
The Trekkie in me can't wait for a unified world, but the mirror universe Trekkie in me fears that we need the Vulcans to show up so we have conquering them as a cause for unity.
Haha! As someone brought up with reruns of the original series and as a huge fan of TNG, DS9 and Voyager, I see where you are coming from. :-)
Fellow Trekkie here. When someone asked what's the difference between Star Wars and Star Treck I said 'Star Wars is a lore, Star Treck is a vision'.
@@susannehartl3067 A really great answer. :-)
Why do you think the US have restriction on weapon they provide to Ukraine? Since Russia does not seem to have real red line, is there a third party concern? Or could it be because they are afraid to create a precedent that could escalate other conflict?
They are afraid of mistake they did with Siviet Union, Iran, Afghanistan etc. Firstly provided them with weapons, and later on had to try and accommodate them...
11:20 My impression of both Scotland and Quebec is that the referendums were never going to pass, the government knew it, and it was a a risk free way to make an irritating opposition group shut up, rather than an actual chance of independence via referendum.
Catalonia might vote yes on a referendum, and will never get one
I disagree. Scotland and Quebec got a free referendum without a government being a bitch or an a-hole. That's eventually what convinced enough people to stay in the union.
Look at what Spain did...
I'm pretty sure that now after the fluked Catalonian referendum, I have 0 doubts left they will vote independence in a "real" referendum. And that's exactly because of the reaction of Spain.
The UK said oh you want a referendum, sure we'll give you one. Good luck, we'll have our own campaign too and we also promise not to spend more than you guys...
And that's the way to handle these issues. The fact that a region wants independence means not that they are crazy nationalistic people. It (usually) means there is a (historic) problem within the nation or the problem with their status as a minority. If you handle them with respect and curtesy then you get what the UK had.
Just look at the UK brexit referendum. What did the EU do? There was huge amount of pressure and foulmouthing from the EU side. I agree, brexit is pure idiocy. But I can't blame the Brits for doing it if you heard at people like Verhofstadt inside the EU talking about Farage and the whole Brexit idea.
@@FragLord both approaches worked for the larger states.
@@basanttyagi7516 Yes and what is the point you are trying to make? :)
I doubt that the UK will ever rejoin the EU, as it is constituted now. But as the EU is constituted now is not fit-for-purpose, and doesn't have an effective government structure, nor effective policies for regions to join or leave. As such it will be either grow by adopting more effective techniques, or stagnate and become less relevant in the future. It doesn't have the problem that the US has now with its current constitution that it effective enough that it can't be replaced but not effective enough that it improves over time. Instead, the EU has sufficient flaws that it possible to imagine a successor that removes the current flaws, that the UK or the rump successor states could join.
34:00 - it was so wonderful to hear you describe CANZUK as a crackpot idea. Speaking as an Australian, we have zero desire to re-enter some bizarre reincarnation of the British Empire
Best channel on UA-cam
Thanks so much, Henry! Really appreciated. Do put the word around! :-)
You mentioned you don’t think an anglophone economic union is viable, but what about a bilateral United Kingdom - United States trade agreement. The US and EU markets are comparable in size. Is that also not a viable option?
Not really. US most important trading partners are Canada, Mexico, and China comprising almost 43% of US trading activities. The UK accounts for ~3%.
The UKs most important trading partners are still in Europe accounting for half of the UK's trading activites.
Proximity to markets matters.