Hein Goemans - It’s Going to take More Dying and Destruction Before Russia is Prepared to make Deal
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- GUEST: Hein Goemans - professor of war termination
----------
After the first anniversary of the full-scale war, a febrile and impatient media is asking the question “when will the war end” with greater frequency. There are many reasons for this - of course a concern for the loss of life, the destruction, and the economic pain. But also, war fatigue, misunderstanding the combatant’s motivations and actions, and a general lack of historical perspective, leading them to misunderstand the mechanics and practice of warfare. My guest this week is Hein Goemans, an expert in war termination theory (in other words, how wars end). He explains that “It’s going to take a lot more dying and destruction before both sides are prepared to make a deal, or even start defining what a deal could like”. So is there any clear end to this war in sight, or are the two sides too far apart, with radically different objectives.
----------
SPEAKER:
Hein Goemans, professor at the University of Rochester in the United States. His academic specialism is war termination theory. Hein is a specialist in the politics of war, war termination and territorial disputes. His first book, War and Punishment (2000), and asks what keeps wars going and what makes them stop, and focuses on the role of leaders in war termination - with an empirical focus on World War I. His second book, Leaders, and International Conflict (2011) and focuses on the role of leaders in war initiation, a very relevant area of study in the context of the Ukraine war. Goemans' publications have appeared in the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and other publications. Goemans has discussed his work on war termination in the context of the war in Ukraine in articles in The New Yorker and the Monkey Cage as well as in international media, such as the BBC's The Inquiry, Cable News CBC, Euronews, CNN Portugal, France 24, and other outlets as well as in print media such as The Financial Times, Der Spiegel, and Die Zeit.
----------
LINKS:
www.ft.com/content/b3f7ea51-d...
Ukraine series: how long will the war last? What history tells us about why some conflicts endure, and others end quickly.
www.rochester.edu/college/fac...
press.princeton.edu/books/pap...
----------
#heingoemans #howwarsend #ukraine #ukrainewar #russia #zelensky #putin #propaganda #war #disinformation #hybridwarfare #foreignpolicy #communism #sovietunion #postsoviet
----------
WATCH NEXT:
Sir Richard Shirreff
• Sir Richard Shirreff -...
Operator Starsky
• Operator Starsky - Rus...
Anders Puck Nielsen
• Anders Puck Nielsen - ...
Ben Hodges
• Lt. General Ben Hodges...
John Spencer
• John Spencer - Putin's...
----------
CHAPTERS:
00:00 Introduction
----------
PLATFORMS:
Twitter: / curtainsilicon
Instagram: / siliconcurtain
Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6...
Linkedin: / finkjonathan
Patreon: / siliconcurtain
----------
Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in UA-cam’s algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
The one who invades and kills can never be right, whether he wins or loses.
@@AG-gr4fmWell we had to Invade Germany, I believe we were right
I have to agree with the analysis that we in the west totally misunderstood Russian value of life and underestimated their brutality. This war has been a horrific eye-opener on that front.
Do we know our own brutality and weaknesses?
Been a big fan for a while, I rarely comment on the 'tube, but Hein was so enthusiastic and informative, definitely a top 5 video thus far! Longer next time!
Indeed, Hein was an excellent guest. I really liked the way John and Hein sounded like they were just "shooting the breeze", in a casual conversation. Definitely agree he must come back for another show later on. As I have aid many times, I've had to abandon my home in Donbas and my city (Pokrovsk) is not occupied yet and I'd like to see a victory where the Russians are driven out once and for all so my wife and I can go home.. I'm not Ukrainian, I've lived here for almost a decade, but I can say that most other Ukrainians feel the same way. If the lads want to keep fighting to save their families, then so be it. It's sad and scary but these Russians just won't F off and leave us alone. Crimea defintely has to be next, it sounds impossible but really it's eaiser than taking back the DNR and LNR, as they can be supllied directly over the border by Russia, If the Ukrianian army can cut off Crimea, re-supply will be very hard for Russia,, of course we'll have to hit the Kerch strait bridge again, or "re-visit" it as good ol' General Hodges puts it!
@@irongron Crimea sounds impossible why? specifics do u have? It's a longer term goal, but it's well acknowledged that Ukraine cannot function economically without Crimea being retaken, and that's entirely bcuz of the Ru naval power visavis all freighters, inclding those needing to go into Sea of Azov when the ports are retaken in the coastal corridor. Btw, the word 'scary' doesn't really work. It's really a child's word. "Frightening" is more appropriate, or other terms involving terrorizing, etc. It's good to express yourselves, bcuz this war, imho, is the only serious war since 'the war', ie ww2. My background of studies was international politics, history, etc. Though my Usa is shaky-looking at moment, i am fairly confident that we will continue and even greatly increase support and other types of assistance to Ukraine, and that if necessary, a coaliation of the willing, something like JEF 10 nation group, will help Ukr finish this war, i.e to actualy remove all Ru assets from the territory of Ukr, including Crimea. Again the reason is that there's biiiig economics at stake for many entities, namely Ukr, but also europe, and also the USa, so far. Imho, this war has both the obvious socio-psychological/anthropological angle, ie free-ppl vs passive docile types, there's also realy reeeally big economics implied in the potential negatives IF this war goes on too long, OR if Ru succeeds in any way whatsoever.
3rd this! Fantastic video and vibe to the conversation. An informative and humble presentation of his ideas.
I'm honoured to be the 61st person to press like to this video.
Keep up the good hard work. Finding a way to bring a war to its end is dreary, painful, exhausting for so many.
One would assume people would just calculate the chance of winning, decide they can't win, then just refuse to go to war. And we would also assume at any point in the Ukraine invasion Russia could walk away, just call it a day. But it seems this is more complicated than that. At least it is for now. I'm glad Hein Goemans is working to sort out what is going on.
👍
Not possible to calculate: too many factors. Hindsight is easy -- anyone can do it.
@@loveandwar4474 oh I have plans for that.
I retaliate by either laughing or attacking
I really enjoyed this conversation. It really felt like one. I admire mr. Goeman's readiness to 'admit' he hasn't thought about something in a particular way, and to injest the info without defensive hesitation. You can see the cogs turning and augmenting his thoughts in real time. I feel that both of you came out of the conversation that much richer. Such a delight to see apparent intelectual curiosity and joy in a well established intelectual.
Such rational calculations are an absurdity.
In a conflict over something trivial a country may do that but when the alternative to war is something so terrible and intolerable such as genocide you have no choice but to fight. To victory, to defeat, to death. Because the alternative is simply so intolerable that such a great evil as war is preferable.
This is why western pleas to "sToP tHe WaR bEcUz WaR bAd" will always fall on deaf ears, because the underlying reason why they fight has not gone away. To stop the war would be to accept the unacceptable. To choose the option that was so awful that they chose to fight to avoid.
Death, slavery, torture.
@@moritamikamikara3879 Are you sure you replied to the right comment? :)
Another fascinating conversation.
With regard to the Lists @ about 39:00, Stalin's fifth column in Baltic republics were on the whole swimming in the ethnic Russian populations, much as in Ukraine. There is more to that than can be mentioned here.
The Soviet strategy was to request , then demand Soviet naval bases along the ice free ports. Under the threat of arms. The invasions proceeded with full occupation and Chekist round up of any persons with potential to lead opposition. Arrest of presidents, cabinet members, military, and down to Boy Scout leaders. Result was the massive overnight deportation of tens of thousands in June 1940...again the historic pattern Putin had in mind.
My grandfather, veteran of WWI , and border guard officer escaped this round up due to Soviet sleepers mistaken address. Former neighbor told my grandfather the Cheka has raided the dwelling they had left two years before. Thus he and family escaped to the West. Saved by a clerical error.
I think we tend to underestimate the force of ideology back in the late thirties. It was only 20 years since 1918, and the idea of a world revolution was still a thing, a belief, a goal. For many (non-Russian) communists the International was a real thing, an ideal, a belief in workers uniting over national lines.
And at the same time, from the Russian side, you had had already several different flavours of trying to fit national interests into the overall Soviet project.
So while you might _also_ have had a Russian fifth column, of a more traditional kind, you also had these (usually formerly) local communists. Later in the Soviet period these were often for propaganda purposes elevated - I saw a fascinating exhibition of memorials etc in Gruto Park in Lithuania maybe 15 years ago. Sooo many (to me) totally unknown names of Baltic "communist heroes".
I've often wondered about these non-Russian Soviet supporters. I wonder how similar and how different they were to the nationalists that sided with Germany - sure the German allied nationalists were often more direct about the arrangement being temporary and for convenience, but I wonder about how the soviet-supporters saw things. I can imagine that if you were an Estonian or Latvian communist, had been working toward the world revolution AND independence since the 1890s, you might have selectively heard the Soviet rhetoric about freedom for the small nations within a Soviet world much more than you would have paid attention to the repressions of national aspirations.
Once Hitler, and especially the more mystical racist parts of the NSDAP, gets on the scene there's also a strong, and pretty nasty, traditional enemy of the Baltic people's ambitions.
So at the time, the thirties, you have two competing powers that are both seen as monstrous, diabolical, pure evil, by the other side. Very hard to remain a boring middle of the road small n nationalist.
This Silicon Curtain series is quite thought-provoking! Slava Ukraini. 🇺🇦
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦🇨🇦🇺🇦
Peace to all
You have to have this guy back. Fantastic!
I love how spontaneous and genuine the reactions of the interviewee are. Makes for a really lively listening experience and spurs one's own thinking and partaking much more than a completely polished experience where every idea, every sentence falls neatly in place.
came across this dude last week, he is mad cool. Not really an optimist, but then we aren't in a good situation so optimism isn't the 'in' thing
pragmatism..we cannot bury our heads in the sand when we are dealing with an aggressive revanchist imperialistic Russia
He’s clueless in war technology and larger political sanction elements can be applied. General Ben Hodges is far more realistic on Russia soft underbelly that will crush Russia and Putin. Again, otherwise Nuke Moscow.
👍
Get Lindsey Graham on. Or Stephen Kotkin.
@@ned900 No please not Lindsey Graham. This guy has two faces.
A most excellent interview, yet again Jonathan! What a plethora of amazing guests! I'm so glad that I found your channel.
#Бахмут это #Украина!
#Bakhmut is #Ukraine!
🇺🇦✌️💙💛 #3CY
If🇺🇦StopsFighting, therewill beNO🇺🇦.
If🇷🇺LEAVES ALLof🇺🇦 the
#ruSSian #War WillEND!
#Ukraine #Unbreakable
#ГероямСлава❤️🔥🫡
🇺🇦Freeдom🇺🇦
#Нерозбитий💖
Thank you for this amazing interview, I cannot in good conscience enjoy your content for free.
See you on Patroen.
That’s kind! And very much appreciated!
Great conversation as ever.
I don't think the Russians ever thought of Ukrainians as "brothers" . They see them as serfs under Russians domination.
I have two brothers and I don't think I own their houses and should control their lives and decide what language they use or decide what culture they identify with.
Mentioning Scotland is close as an analogy.
The English have been very like the Russians towards their neighbours. They have used cultural and language erasure, planted population and land theft in exactly the same way the Russians have with their neighbours.
The English in their heart of hearts don't see the Scots, Welsh or Irish as equal to them. No fraternité but plenty of coercion, control and looking down their noses (the northern and poor English aren't included here, they get treated almost as badly).
The English have lost the stomach for violent conquest after centuries of horror. Unfortunately the Russians haven't.
The only thing that will force them to lose the stomach for inflicting horror in the name of national pride is bodybags arriving back to wives and mothers. Hundreds of thousands of bodybags.
The only real tragedy is that innocent Ukrainian civilians and defenders will die as the bags are filled.
As an English person I can assure you the English do not see the Scots or Welsh or Irish in any way as unequal. That is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard on the topic.
@@terryhand read some history.
@@pansepot1490 You are missing the point entirely. I know the history very well, perhaps better than you. But whatever the history, right now in the 21st century The English do not think of The Scots, Welsh or Irish as inferior. Laughably, half of the people who think of themselves as English have probably got Scottish, Irish or Welsh ancestors. The notion that the only reason the English would not launch an invasion should the SNP achieve Scottish Independence is because they have "lost the stomach for violent conquest" as the OP suggests is deeply insulting. I also might add that during the height of the British Empire, people from the all of the four nations were willing participants - or maybe that's the part of the history you don't want to think about.
Get Hein back on? This is probably my favorite episode, and my favorite moment is where he asks you what you think, most (all) guests dont think to do that.
Excellent work. We know how wars start and how to start them.
But how they end and and how to end them...
Thank you.
Indeed.
They never end,
just put on hold.
Every peace deal
has the the seed
of the next war in it.
I think we are safe to assume that 'the west' is not organised enough to implement a strategy of bleeding Russian resources by trickling in weapons to the UAF. I think there are genuine logistical, political, and even technical issues at play. The training of UAF troops on western equipment is an example. Another example that I witnessed here in Canada was a total lack of preparation by our military to get together decent number of combat ready tanks to send. Sure, it's all too slow and not enough, but the co-ordination and cooperation is a miracle. That, in and of itself speaks to a lack of ulterior motives in my mind.
@@loveandwar4474 Slava Ukraine!
@@loveandwar4474 Sorry man, I'm not a part of your alternate reality experiment. Have a nice day.
@@loveandwar4474 You mean you use to be a free thinker? Next time you're in Moscow look up the Wagner group. I think they are still hiring and you don't need experience. The severance package on a 6 month contract is well worth the time.
@@loveandwar4474 Equating Canadian media with Russian State media is insulting to Canadians. Calling Ukrainians "western Nazis or eastern communists" is deeply offensive. But I'll bite, how does the whole bot farm / trolling thing work? Is it a salary job or do you get paid by the post? Are your posts cut and paste? That first comment was straight out of the Tucker Carlson propaganda handbook.
@@TKMcClone
This rusbot going overdrive on Silicon Curtain channel. Looks like they added it to their list of ”harmful” channels.
Which makes me think we need a total legislative rework of social medias, in order to somehow get rid of this kind of trash.
I urge you don't delete all these videos.
They are important for history.
Maybe humanity will learn something.
Once Ukraine gets to 1991 borders I see them having to guard against their whole border with Russia and this war only ending when Russia gives up.
15:00 "... gambling for resurrection...". Good description of where Russia is right now. There will be a messy change of government in Russia in the next few years. That's how the war will end.
@@loveandwar4474 Putin won’t launch nukes, he knows it would be fatal for him.
@@loveandwar4474If you still believe in nuclear escalation, think again.
@@loveandwar4474 he means Russia using nukes is an end game more for you than it is the west. Had Russia not invaded Ukraine and showed how incompetent and gutted their military is the constant threats might hold water. But given over 60% of your precision missiles fail to get anywhere near their target (that's just failures not interception) why would we think your nuclear deterrent is not subject to the same levels of corruption and disarray? A nuclear warhead requires way more maintenance than a ballistic missile does...
Very astute conversation. Thank you both.
If you watch free to air TV news in Aus you would be hard pushed knowing there was a war. Peace and freedom to Ukraine 🇺🇦☮️
Very good. Mny thx again.
Johnathan: One thing you seem to be missing is that Crimea isn't economically viable without a land bridge from Russia and water for irrigation. Russia cannot hold on to Crimea without those things. Over and above this - Putin can't have a functional Ukraine next to him so his decision was complex.
After the siege of Mariopol, the economic viability of Crimea became irrelevant. Russia now has to hold every it holds in Zaporizhzhia, Dombras and Crimea in order to protect the Sea of Azov, traffic on the Don and even any naval activity on the Black Sea.
One of the best recent discussions on the war. Thanks.
👍
A "deal" is not what russia deserves. It is another word that begins with a D.
I don’t even think a deal is possible with Putin
No that’s not possible.
@@loveandwar4474 it’s not about preferring this or not. But how do you make a deal with someone who doesn’t have worry about lying or going back on his word there can be no deal with that type of person. Putin is that person.
@@loveandwar4474 yes Russian nationalists say the natural border of Russia in westerly direction is the west coast of England/Scotland/Wales. It's not explained why they don't want the Island of Ireland.
Thanks for this episode. It was good to hear Prof. Goemans in more detail after his recent appearance on CNN, which was too short. I really liked the fascinating dialog emerging between you two. Well done!
Enjoyed this conversation, thanks
Another great interview. Thanks
Great conversation
Fascinating! I would lke to hear more like this.
Another excellent interview. Please bring him back for round 2
Thanks for the information
That was a very good conversation.
Thanks. I wish you had asked if the decolonizing of russia will be done by China not Ukraine...and if that's where the war will be terminated.
Great interview!
Thank you
Wonderful interview. Some thoughts on the political and military views in the West on ending the war: 1. From a military perspective, Ben Hodges rightly complains on the need for strategic clarity as to what US/Western objectives should be: NOT we are with you for "as long as it takes", but we will support you to WIN back all lands in Ukraine held by Russia; 2. In contrast, from a political perspective, clarity needs to be avoided, and ambiguity is sought to reduce risks and leave room for future options in response to unseen and unknown events. In particular, the risks include expanding the war into a NATO conflict, possibly provoking Russia to use tactical nukes, and possibly weakening a fragile Western alliance from acting with a common set of tactics. Chief among future events of critical concern, especially to the US, is the role China is playing, and could play in the future, both in terms of their support for Russia, and their actions with regard to Taiwan, and the South China Sea. Another future concern is to somehow retain channels of communication open with Russian authorities for finding ways to end the war, and create some possibilities for a path that a future Russia can rejoin the global community. 3. A third, and I think quite limited view in the West, is to extend the war to bleed Russian ability to fight NATO in the future.
The war could end tomorrow and whether (3) would be achieved is more related to what happens after. If the sanctions are not lifted then it's unlikely that RU will be in a position to threaten NATO.
It often looks like America wants the war to go on for as long as possible to weaken Russia. Hence point 1 comes into play.
You really think anyone in the west would want to provoke Putin into using nukes??? To be honest that smacks of Mearsheimer's deranged viewpoint that everything Putin does is justified because the west somehow made him do it. As they discussed, the moral thing for Russia to do is to leave, pay reparations and admit this attempt to destroy Ukraine was wrong but it's more likely to cause them to double down on their imperialistic ambitions.
Really really great.
At the very beginning of this invasion, a 🇺🇦 pointed out on Twitter that “For 🇷🇺, this war is a fight for their existence.” I think this perfectly explains the reason of their aggressiveness towards 🇺🇦; they badly need Kyiv & Ukraine to overwrite their identity and to soothe the sense of inferiority. To make up its ideal self image, 🇷🇺 needs to erase 🇺🇦 or redesign it, just like cosmetic surgery addicts do.
Thank you to you both. It was a great conversation. Please have him back🙏
Good interview
I totally appreciated this. One of the best insights I’ve listened to or read. Please do a follow up in the summer.
👍
Another fascinating and sobering discussion. :
Some of my thoughts in consideration:
Neither side has a viable plan B Failure for each side is fatal.
Best case scenario for Ukraine is to drive Russia back to the 2014 boundaries and then a toxic peace might be established. Worst is to be overrun.
Best case scenario for Russia is to overrun Ukraine and then suffer a toxic peace with the world. Worst is to become a failed state.
China's peace plan does not discuss any of the isssues raised in the first half o the video, and is vague as to what might be a boundary and therefore is not yet a viable framework for peace negotiations. By accepting it, Zelinsky has helped keep Chna neutral. To be a legitimate mediator in the discussion, they cannot afford to supply Russia lethal assistance.
Thank you again for a quality discussion.
Wonderful and I teresting guest-really enjoyed this one.
Good discussion with more depth than the vast majority of other content on this medium.
👍
He in talked about learning information from a war. Is there anything to learn from the Korean War ? I’m wondering if similar border problems will exist for Ukraine trying to live next to an authoritarian power always ogling your country. Thanks Jonathan, interesting interview!
The Korean cease fire and DMZ is a good example of the toxic peace Jonathan.Fink mentioned.
Thks & there’s numerous forms of negotiations;
However the bestest forms of negotiations are winning on the military/economic/propaganda/etc battlefields ;)
No Tom, you have to understand Vladimir Putin killed all the people that would have been his successors. Which mean his underlings are greedy for wealth not land or territory where you have to work 80 hours week to rebuild a country. Who the f**k wants to be a "Civil Servant" that is a totally thankless job. You easily take over the mineral rights in Russia and be driving a 1 million dollar super car, to your private Super Yacht. These dude isn't going keep up with his stupid war.
Good stuff
The title says it all.. im going to have to watch this video now.. 😀
There are a few like him, honest, fact based and rational, the problem is you wind up HAVING as you say to watch and it becomes work.😒
@@fibber2u 😆☺️ I haven't heard him before,I'm sure he's as good as all of SC guests are..
Excellent talk with Hein G. once again. Thx again for all the effort. On the subject of rub-out lists, Hitler, too, had a little list of undesirables to be terminated, once Britain had been successfully invaded. So, it's clearly a Dictator Club thing.
Another view that might seem a bit outdated, is that if you look at the conflict as something that happens in the remnants of the Soviet Union, and all you need to do is feed some of your money and weapons into it and it'll basically run down the military potential of the involved countries for a couple of decades. If you were a hanger on from the cold war you would LOVE the situation as it is now.
Been lookin for Mr. Goemans, finally get to hear his views expresed... impressive interview on CNN they cut him off before he could finish what he was saying.
22:25 Curtain vs Kissinger... 👀
Hehe... I understand. I often find myself in smackdowns with Clausewitz, where I keep reminding him, _"Karlchen! You must learn that smackdowns are a continuation of academic intercourse involving other _*__*_ means!"_
😂😂😂
yah when USSR broke up China did not really take advantage of this for the following reasons: 1. No support from the west, and even threat of bad sanctions if China tries to reclaim historical lands from the USSR. 2. Russia the successor state to the USSR, still has a lot of nukes, and can use them on China. 3. China at this time was focused on massive economic reforms and not want to disrupt this by conquering ex Soviet lands.
Thanks for the video .. also for me it's like to wake up in the morning and .. it's still dark .. the sun doesn't rise anymore .. how can a whole country like Russia still live on the planet ? .. where I can stand my soul now ? .. I must build a wall to protect myself ? or must take out my knife and start to fight ?
Dear Renata, Reading your reply I am literally sitting in the dark in the morning. The rain is pouring down, the sun is not rising. Somewhere behind the clouds the sun is still shining. Yet there, where you are it seems there is only darkness - how overwhelmed you must be feeling! It's SO understandable that you cry out "where to stand your soul now"? You are not alone in feeling this - inner despair felt by so many, overwhelmed by this evil that once again has taken off its mask and flaunts itself so brazenly upon this earth. You ask a spiritual question, so I am responding out of care for your inner anguish. Those who don't care about spiritual things can just stop reading now and move on to other comments, because what I write to Renata will probably sound facile and not resonate with you at all.
We simply cannot rest our deepest hope fully on other human beings, as we are all fallible, even when we try not to be. Like Frodo in Tolkein's book Lord of the Rings, we must, if we are to be whole while on this broken, beautiful planet, carry (not wear) in our pocket that evil ring of inordinate ambition, obscene wealth, and self-worship all the way up to the mountain of fire. (I am not referring to wise, responsible, grateful self-care, or healthy measured ambition or wealth used to do good to others) There, staring into the firey abyss, we must take it out of our pocket and without putting it on, cast it quickly far into the firey depths, to destroy it forever. Frodo could not have done this without his faithful courageous friend Samwise, who helped him up when he was overcome by the evil forces he felt as he approached the fire. Frodo, fainting, asks Samwise, there high on the barren, scorched mountain, "Why are we doing this Samwise? Samwise replies, "That there is good in the world." I have found in my own experience that we can overcome evil with the faithful, lovingkindness of the Lord Jesus Christ in our hearts, who, when on the earth, during the Roman occupation lived a life of loving others, going about healing and teaching, and without taking up the sword, entered the firey abyss upon the cross. He overcame death itself by coming back alive from the grave (he was seen by over 500 people all at the same time, as well as speaking with individuals, also his follower students, eating with them too, showed his wounds). Anchor your soul there dear Renata, in the hope of good overcoming evil, in the promise of God to finally bring heaven to earth. While you are feeling in despair, read the bible carefully - it will speak hope and understanding to you. It's been called the sword of the spirit, and will give you hope, show you how to discern what is truly good, and teach you how to stand firm in the face of evil. His eternal love for you will strengthen your heart, and his living waters will flow from your heart with love for others, setting you free and giving you the strength to love people around you. "Resist the devil and he will flee from you, draw near to God and He will draw near to you". " The light shines on in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. (Book of John, chapter 1)" read Ephesians 6 about resisting evil, Hebrews 6, and 7, about having an anchor for your soul. You ask, led in your despair, should you take up a knife? With your soul anchored firmly in God's love and His promises, you will know the answer when the time comes. But first...the anchor. Psalms "He took my feet from the mirey clay and set me on a solid rock".
War termination ...That sounds odd indeed. In romanian we have a proverb which i can translate like when a madman throws a stone in the mud pool you need at least ten wise men to extract it. this guy sounds like one of those guys.
For some unknown reason this will not let me like this vlog...????? Always interesting and informative.
🤔
yes a very bad and possibly fatal miscalculation for Putin. in fact Putin is like that burglar who planned to break in and rob a house for years, then on the night he was going to carry on his deed he falls in a deep hole, a trap set by the house owner and Putin is trying to get desperately out but it will be very hard for him to do so. hahah
His fatal failure is not the war but his real belief in the greatness and strength of Russia
A better question posed to those who "avoid avoiding war" (note, the double negative) as strategy, would be "How to stop wars from breaking out in the first place."
Those who wish to "divide and rule", from a place of a geographical advantage (historical reality), *avoid avoiding wars* as a way of expanding their spheres of influence.
The "heavy lifting" is done by proxies (strategy).
From the standpoint of Moscow, after 1999, who was going to be the next proxy, for the process of "carving up the Russian Fedaration" after the Ukraine or Georgia joined NATO? Tannu Tuva?
Interesting topic, but the category is "too little, too late."
You mention Death of Stalin towards the end of your exchange. At an earlier point, I was reminded of a line between Khruschev and Stalin's daughter, something like "it's when people's stories don't fit that they get hurt". As this war goes on, to a layman like me the film has seemed less of a black comedy and more of a documentary.
A lot of the specifics of the film are wrong but almost all of the broad stuff is dead on
@@moritamikamikara3879 I'm sure you're right, Better than the other way round!
A great conversation.
Better than a lecture!
This channel should have way more subs.
👍🏻😀🇬🇧
👍
The brief mention of advancing age is relevant. Like Putin, I see people around going slow, they don't realise that if you want it done you need to get a move on.
With regards to a prepared list of people to eliminate (by death or imprisonment) after the invasion (discussed around 38:00), the German also made such a very detailed list for the invasion of England. It has been referred to in many documentaries. Just one more similarity between Russia and the 3rd Reich.
Yes, I’m amazed at how little Putin is seriously compared to Hitler, because there’s a huge amount of similarities …
@@retromograph3893 Although people have a general awareness that the 3rd Reich's evilness and of the holocaust, I suspect that the majority who do not have a strong interest in history don't know enough of the details to recognize the numerous, striking similarities. I have been wishing for a while that some historian or sociologist would make a list of those similarities. It could open some people's eyes, especially those who think that this war is just a Russian-Ukrainian local issue that would not spread beyond Ukraine's border.
First of all, thank you very much for this episode! I’d like to help you explore something as someone who was born and lived for a while in the USSR, Russia and Ukraine. As very educated and intelligent people you’re trying to find a logic in Putin/Kremlin acting. It’s the same as to try to understand: do serial killers have logical reasons for what they do? Or, why shooter walks into a school and kills innocent children? Psychotic killers believe they are justified in their killings and it makes perfect sense to them. What’s illogical to “normal” people, may be perfectly logical to them. Putin is a mentally ill person depending on whether you consider a sociopathy a mental illness. Putin is a textbook of sociopath. He consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. He is known to be the wealthiest person on the planet because he was a partner in every Russian oil company. He’s richer than Elon Musk. It’s not like he created anything or developed anything (let alone whether I consider Musk a good person, he’s changed the world). Putin came out of St Petersburg’s dirty courtyards from extremely unfortunate family. He was never visible or respected by anyone in his childhood. Fast forward, he’s KGB agent (the meanest, dirtiest, most indecent profession, mostly people with zero empathy). Suddenly, right place right time, he becomes a President, powerful. He figured out how to rob the country holding up to a huge amount of money. He surrounded himself with people who share same values - money, yachts, palaces. He goes down, everyone goes down. He found the right people for propaganda and pays them millions of dollars. He has the strongest personal protection making him unreachable. All he could do was keep living his miserably wealthy life, but he needed a victory and miscalculated his plan to dominate Ukraine. He just wants Ukraine like a serial killer wants “this” girl - rape her, live or dead. He just wants Ukraine. Also having a country with democratic values right under his nose seemed dangerous, and he decided to get rid of this problem but this time got “the wrong guy”. Ukrainians will fight to save their sovereignty and identity with their teeth, bare hands and knives if the West decides to give up on Ukraine or if Trump gets the chair (God forbid)
@ag - spot on! Putin like other criminal minds wants what he wants. I’ve thought of the same sexual assault analogy many times during these months. Also, a successful democracy on his border was a risk he could not stand. “Russia is a gas station with a mafia boss!” It’s a mafia state, which will take whatever others let it take.
Something that amuses me and i haven't really heard discussed is THAT meeting that have taken place some time before the invasion when Putin had all his top brass gathered in a room, and explained his big idea. "So that's it, we can really do this, right guys?!" They must have all looked at each other, thought "oh, $hit", then said: "Sure boss". What else could they say? Something like this?: "Well boss, there's a leeeettle problem. You know all that money you've been pouring into the military over the last twenty years? Actually, we've embezzled a large amount of it. All that gear listed in the excel sheet, a lot of it is either fake or doesn't exist. The numbers of troops is greatly exaggerated. How else do you think we each ended up owning 3 villas on Lake Como?" So this is the dictator's dilemma, at the moment you actually need the truth, it's not available to you.
Henk is a real;y good actor.
21:40 On the reasons for the specific window during which Russia attacked, Ukraine was investing heavily in a native missile program. They managed to sink the flagship of the Black Sea fleet with one of those. But the program was barely starting to produce weapons when the invasion started. With a larger stockpile of Ukranian produced long-range missiles, the cities in Ukraine would not had been the only ones being bombarded in the event of full-scale war. There was an impending deterrent coming into the picture. I believe the Russians tried to act before it came to fruition. The program had yielded a few anti ship missiles and they were still months away from manufacturing in large numbers or modifying for ground-to-ground.
42/23; much enjoy your channel, your pro western views & guests comments. Carry on!👍👏😊
👍
Interesting discussion, thank you! I would add a few points:
1. One of the reasons for Putin's obsession with Ukraine is quite rational - he does not want a successful European democratic project in a neighboring country that is very similar to Russia. If that was possible in Ukraine why couldn't it be possible in Russia? It would be dangerous for him. The same goes for Belarus.
2. Navalny was never actually a puppet politician that was "given a role". He did try to appeal to the nationalist part of society because that's what politicians do - they try to widen their base. That didn't work though especially after 2014 when the nationalist-patriotic part of society totally bought Putin's agenda and lost any sort of independent agency.
3. However amplifed the ultra-patriot agenda is these days, it still does not bother the majority of Russian society. Most of the people just try to get by and on with their lives in this new environment and not at all enthusiastic about the war. They cannot do anything about it.
4. The current state of affairs is not a result of some sort of "will of the people" but rather a result of an usurpation of power. To ensure a lasting non-toxic peace Russia has to become a democracy. In that scenario yes there will be a certian amount of ultra-nationalists like in any other country but they would not constitute a majority and therefore would not be able to start another war.
5. In terms of building a democracy in Russia the West could actually help by demanding any post-Putin authorities to include opposition politicans and leaders of opinion into transitonal bodies like a constitutional assembly in return for lifting of sanctions. The last time in early 90s the West simply settled with ex-CPSU and ex-KGB bureaucrats thinking somehow that everything would be fine if there's market economy in the country. It didn't end well. In fact the democratic period in Russia was more or less over by mid-90s and some would say by 1993.
@@contentsdiffer5958 probably yes. however I think there's also some symbolism in play here. The tzars were called "Tzar of Vseya (all) Velika (big i.e. Russia), Mala (Ukraine) and Bela (Belarus) Rus". There's this triade of slavic peoples that is essential to the imperialist agenda. That makes Ukraine special. Other peoples are secondary in this paradigm.
The negotiating book Start With No (to me) has the idea at its core that when people agree with what you ask for, you don't really need much communication skill. But it's when they say no you do. This will separate people into those who get more of what you want (there is the other negotiating book Getting More) and those who accept getting less than they want. While I appreciate Mr. Goemans' fundamentally essential work, I don't see him discussing different approaches between eventually stopping Russia from fighting in Ukraine and getting them to stop earlier, to lessen the bloodshed. This is a valuable introduction to this topic but it seems like that, merely an introduction, that much more needs to be discussed and discovered before it can be applied to Ukraine and Russia.
As long as the focus is not on those suffering in the war zone there will not be enough pressure on aggressors to change their ways. Plenty of time for academics and strategists to amuse themselves while the bodies pile up.
Anatoli Golizyn predicted all these developments quite even before the perestroika.
Febrile, nice word! (Showing signs of having a fever)
On the German channel VisualPolitik De, the guy made a video about Ukraine (the most recent one), and he noted that Putin said Russia and Ukraine are "brother people" but Putin did not say they are friends.
Regarding the Sinister Plan that was mentioned- it was most likely an option. In the very beginning of the russian-ukranian war some information appeared on the Internet that suggested the Sinister Plan. Some people probably acted too soon and the Sinister Plan failed. But some people will also tell that the Sinister Plan is still in game and that it will be executed sooner or later. I have to add that I come across these kind of information as a sort of irrelevant or side information. My field of interest has nothing to do with war or russian-ukranian war in paticular. Anyway, I hope that the war will stop as soon as possible.
It's a very inteesting talk, smart one! I am a PhD in psychology from Russia, who fled country in 2022. Being Russian myself, I wish to provide you with additional knowledge of the context and psychology of people, because it seems to me, you don't quite understand the rigged logic of some people in Russia. It is very different type of thinking and decision making.
Please post some ideas here, if you have time. It would be interesting. In English or Russian- как вам легче!
@@SiliconCurtain I am very pleased to recieve your response! My English is far from perfect, but I hope you will understand the main points.
In my opinion, in this conversation you take two premises as a basis. First, you analyze the war through the prism of foreign policy. For example, thinking about Putin's goals in the international arena and his relationship with NATO. The second premise is that you attribute to Putin the presence of some kind of rationality and plan, just very immoral, evil, but calculated.
In fact, it might be very productive to analyse this war and its reasons through the prism of internal policy. After returning to the Kremlin in 2012 Putin faced a lot of problems. Big part of the society (mostly educated people from big cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg) started to hate him because of his brutal actions to Bolotnaya protestants. In 2013 and 2014 Putin’s approval rating was rapidly declining and then Maidan happened, Yanukovich fled Ukraine and Putin annexed the Crimea Peninsula. First of all, it was a poorly calculated maneuver, and his advisors tried to convince him not to do that. However, Putin didn’t face much resistance both from Ukrainians and Western countries. Imposed sanctions were very weak and eventually helped Putin to blame the US and the EU for the Russian economic crisis (Oil prices dropped twice in 2014). What is really important is that Putin's approval rating skyrocketed and it was mostly genuine approval from the majority of people. For the next 4 years despite severe economic downfall, Putin stayed very popular and won the elections in 2018.
However, in 2018 Putin approved an extremely unpopular bill about increasing the retirement age. His rating started slowly to fade away. Highly likely, he wanted to start a new war either to put on a puppet regime into Kiew or to annex some territories (or both). But not for the glory of the Empire or some the USSR recurrection, but for insuring his elections results for a new term. This time he didn’t listen to anyone, because the last time he “was right”. In this sense it was really not a planned war rather really a “special military operation” like in Crimea in 2014.
In addition, Putin does not have any external political goals. All his speeches about NATO, history and so on change each year, they are not consistent. The only consistent thing is his obsession with Ukraine. You’re right in your assessment that Putin doesn’t recognise the agency of common people. Putin wanted to assert his dominance on Ukraine since the 2004 presidential elections and always failed. So, his motives are very personal and rather emotional, everything else is just rationalization. Putin has an extremely shorttime planning horizon and it’s hard to understand for people from Europe or the US. Yes, Putin dislikes NATO and feel some kind of a threat from NATO (it is the only organization which can effectively put the end to his reign), but he doesn't plan anything. It is just "let's try and then we look what would happen". The level of his decision making is unimaginable for experts. People assume that if he stayed in power for 24 years he is cunning and smart, but it simply not true.
I would be happy to develop those thesis if it is interesting.
Slava Ukrayini Heroyam Slava!!
Lots to chew on here. The thing that stood out for me was the discussion on the value placed on individual life by the respective societies. Putin and the Russian public not seeming to care about the huge losses being incurred is alarming. Yet I note two things, first there were a significant number of young and conscript-eligible people that left Russia and were not willing to sacrifice their lives for Putin, and secondly, the difficulty Putin and the Russian state have had in mobilizing more people to rush to the front. Putin's propaganda notwithstanding, I doubt anyone in Russia sees this as akin to the great patriotic war. He and his supporters seem to be very careful not to impose too much on the large population centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg. This will need to change if Putin is going to play the long game, which will require more troops, less corruption in the ranks, more equipment, more production and more sacrifice. Putin's long game will require Russian will beyond what they have shown in this war. Things are not improving for Russia as a whole, and it seems they will get worse the longer this goes on. The long game cuts both ways, and it might turn out to be more in favor of the West than most people think.
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
*For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).*
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
*They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.*
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
*Screaming Mimi* is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
*Two-Headed Snake* is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The *Constant Critic* is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The *Gatekeepers* withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
*Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying.* Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable *comprehensive European security agreement* was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems: "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
*To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.*
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
*Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.*
If you may, Consider Оксана Забужко and Lonerbox as your guests.
Taking away the positive's from this interesting interview there didn't seem to be much speculation over a thermonuclear exchange..
26:56 what is the name he says after hitler?
Your discussion brings to mind the comment I made it 6 months ago. In order to win this war Ukraine does not have to defeat Russia, it only has to defeat Moscow. It could do this almost overnight, if it had 10,000 drones of about 2000 lb scale. Ukraine really has no other choice.
@@loveandwar4474 Maybe Russia should worry about the WEST's nukes as much as you seem to be worrying about Russia's... They bluff, and you panic...and they laugh.
@@loveandwar4474 "...I'm a Putin apologist..."
Nuff said.
Interesting perspective. Unfortunately I think this is unacceptable to Western sensibilities.
But even so, it MIGHT work. But it would also shut the door to EU and Nato for Ukraine for many decades. The West would default to seeing Russia and Ukraine as post-soviet countries squabbling internally.
Putin's big blunder was setting up his invasion in such a conventional way, by doing this he swept away the ambiguity of "oh those post-Soviet countries, it is all such a mess, isn't it?", the strategy that had worked so well for him with Crimea.
@@loveandwar4474 Would you like to live in "Putin's buffer"?
Maybe you would like me, in Finland, to also live in "Putin's buffer"?
How about Warsaw? How about Berlin?
(Do you remember the world of the 80ies? I do)
Maybe it would be a good idea if Putin got Denmark and Holland too - would make Berlin so much more secure...
@@loveandwar4474 "Ukraine was fine...."
I hope you eventually grow up. Have a nice day.
Hein: You talk top fast!
Regardless of the difficult questions towards ending the war in Ukraine, cynicism drives towards why it was allowed to start. The whole damn blood spilling could have been avoided. In summary all sides are to blame. They're no grown ups in the room other than headline grabbing.
I was litterally teaching my students about gambling for ressurection in ww1 this afternoon. Holweg called it "rolling the iron dice." Its so very similar to what putin is doing now. And, for what it's worth, in ww1, each power only seriously sued for peace once thier leaders felt they had no other choice.
The same reason they went to war in the first place, btw.
For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, *events* don't lie, steal, or kill.
*Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...*
Divide and rule is the core strategy as you say of empires, especially the British empire / but also the Russian one. There are some key differences- because of the extreme inefficiency of the Russian empire through history, and relative lack of technological sophistication, they have relied much more on brute force, terror and coercion… as well as subterfuge to make enemies believe were more powerful than the reality. The other major difference is that Russia is not a rules based society, so alliances and agreements tend to be more expedient, and based on ‘power relations’ and relationships, than law and treaty.
@@SiliconCurtain The side pushing the last 30 years is clear in any objective analyses, as the USA. It started even as the SU was dissolving in the early 1990s, and clearly weak (economic throes of the early-/mid-1990s). Stating that it was Russia "pushing" their empire, would be skewing the timeline.
It is an observation in psychology that psychopaths and bullies are very clever and manipulative in their ways, and usually try to blame shift (the biblical "pointing fingers"). This is described in detail in the below comment, which you did not reply to.
Mirriam-Webster defines brute force as
.. "relying on or achieved through the application of force, effort, or power in usually large amounts instead of more efficient, carefully planned, or precisely directed methods."
All empires used and use brute force, in case one strictly sticks to the definition of the words you've chosen to describe Russia.
*Or how would you describe the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003?*
@@SiliconCurtain Note that in an exchange based on observations (realism) and definitions, that these cannot be "countered" by an opinion or a personal standpoint. The answer to an observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions of by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power, and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinately.
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the above comment, just above this one, which you did not respond to.
*If the observation is that an opposing system is "pushing and pushing" to overpower the own system, regardless of the personal opinion or standpoint of the observer, until something snaps, then something will eventually snap.*
33:13 "the immortality of drip feeding"
As one with some military experience, and as one with some deeper-than-average religious background, the immorality of this technique evades me. Have I been so inured to war?
_Note: at the risk of being tiresome, I comment generously for Mr Curtain's channel engagement metrics._
👍👍👍
38:39 Russian lists.... any association with Cambridge Analytics here?
It's genuinely difficult to find out what the Ukrainian or Russian people think about the war, and why. What are the best news sources for this?
On UA-cam, see Russian Media Monitor - transcripts of the daily Russian state TV shows where the war is discussed and Russia 1420, an extensive series of vox-pops made by a young Russian in Moscow, St Petersburg and elsewhere. You will get a clear view of how Russians think, which is backed up by much expert comment on why so many Russians are de-politicised, totally passive and accepting of what Putin does.
Just ask them on social media
I am a Scot. Wanted independence all my life.. our curse was being neighbours to England. A vicious imperial state that thin they own us and our land.
As an English student who studied in Edinburgh, who whose relatives suffered at the hands of the English in Ireland, I can sympathise. I have no doubt an independent Scotland within the EU would be a more prosperous and dynamic country, even than it is now…
In my opinion nationalism and tribalism have many things in common. I am not refering to ukranian nationalism, but to nationalism in general. In fact, in russian-ukranian war both sides play and manipulate with nationalistic feelings. Elizabetth I and Mary Queen of Scots- Tudors and Stuarts are well known stories that describe rivalry between Scotland and England. Soft nationalism? I wonder how many soft nationalists have soft attitude towards multinationalists or people from mixed marriages?
I would suggest @Kraut_the_Parrot's video on "A critique of Realism" to understand what Mearsheimer and Kissinger get wrong, or rather what the problem of Realism is.
34:23 very near to this video's release, following XiXi Bear's 🧸 abrupt departure, the Chinese started publishing old maps of the C Empire's holdings, before being lost to the R Empire.
😉
A very interesting interview, as ever. About the "slow bleed" strategy, it seems to me that even from a cynical and amoral perspective it would be a pretty risky one, given the disastrous potential consequences of a Trump comeback/jailbreak. OK, Desantis has rowed back a bit in the last weeks, but there's no way that i for one will ever trust him to pick up from what Biden has done. So my question is: who exactly do we think would be entertaining that strategy? Are we talking about the US military industrial complex (MIC)? I certainly can't see why any Europeans would be thinking that way. And in any case, is the MIC the monolithic shady organisation that lefty (or esoteric right) conspiracy theorists would have us believe? Well, i don't think so, and cannot see how/why the _slow bleed_ would be a majority view.
Jonathan, if you get to read this, could you possibly give some reference to where we can read about this theory?
Several of my military guest experts mentioned it, including Sean McFate
Can mere _intent_ be noble? 🤔
Short answer = no.
Long answer = every terrible thing in history has been done with the best of intentions. No-one with political power wakes up and thinks "let's see how much evil I can do today". They think "what are my goals?" and then go about trying to achieve them. Russian national stability is a noble intention. The methods used to achieve it can, however, make the original intention irrelevant.
Wait! He had not thought the drip feed of supplies was a deliberate strategy to weaken Russia?!? That seemed to be a possibility months ago!
34:45 Are we sure China doesn't want territory? Tibet was the 10th largest country when it was annexed in 1951. Further back, China has often expanded. I would say that Xi's ambitions for Taiwan are also expansionist.
how do we know about the list of targets which russia intended to kill, deport, or coerce if they had taken keiv in 20 days? can we read this list?
Isnt it obvious ?
Why did US go to second gulf war? Can't figure that out. What did US want to win?
Love channel, but fell asleep during the introduction.
🙀
@@SiliconCurtain Intro was fine
I see many more tall buildings with open windows in Russia's future ;)