Russia Is a Marginal Power
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Disarming Syria. Asylum for Edward Snowden. Arming Iran. Is Vladimir Putin flexing his muscles, while our own president fades into the background of world politics, or is it all a global game of smoke and mirrors? Russia is one of the world's largest oil producers and has the power of veto on the U.N. Security Council, but it remains an authoritarian state, rife with corruption and economic struggles. Is our toxic relationship something to worry about, or is Putin's Russia fading in importance?
Syria: Putin -1, Obama-0
Krim: Putin -1, Obama-0
Ukraine: Putin -1, Obama-0
Gas-Pipelines: Putin -3, Obama-0
Forbes: Putin -2, Obama-0
Economy: Putin -50% - Obama + 3%
SumoGambit
Are you talking about GDP, because -50% is nonsence.
SumoGambit You mean bogus MANIPULATED +3%?
Jakob Moller +1
US election Putin 5+, US citizens 0
I've lost the Pro side, when one guys said he considers Estonia to be more significant than Russia.
Thank you Intelligence Squared, I have really enjoyed this and other of your debates and I appreciate you making them available for all to view on UA-cam. One minor suggestion... would you consider specifying the date the debate occurred in the Description, as this helps contextualise it for those viewing (or deciding whether or not to view) your debates after the fact? I realise the date the video was published to UA-cam is shown automatically , but that is (or may not be) the same thing. In any case many thanks for your great work.
To even think that Russia is a marginal power is so ludicrous that I hope people who think like that would never come to power anywhere.
It's too late to hope for that - they're firmly entrenched in power in the developed nations of the world. Lucas and Bremmer - idiots that they are - are simply expressing the official line.
Khayyam1048 and which country has come out and officially said they consider russia to be of marginal importance to the world?
death2ignorence When asked, they couldn't even name a country that mattered more than Russia other than USA or China. Estonia? UK? really?
Alexander Nevsky Im not certain how your comment is directed at me as I was merely pointing out that the notion that IQ2 (or the debaters) were simply pushing an official line would require there to be an official line which there isn't. however I would like to point out that i think your largest issue and likely the issue of the OP was the particular view taken when understanding what a marginal power is. thirty years ago russia (more accurately the USSR) was one of the two most powerful countries dominating a bi-polar world. with the fall of the soviet union the US stood unrivalled for a time, but old tendencies die hard and russia was still looked to to balance out the US (which in many cases they were only too happy to do[or appear to do]), and more broadly the west. the notion that russia is a marginal power is more (in my opinion) about russia no longer be categorised as the counterweight to the US with china being more and more used as the go to comparison. to me russia could only be a 'marginal' power if by the same token you consider the UK, Germany, Japan etc marginal powers. its all about how marginal is perceived, its been a while since I've watched the video but thats what i remember
death2ignorence Oh it was directed at you because I was agreeing with you completely. I just thought it funny when the guy tried to argue Estonia mattered more than Russia... No disrespect to Estonia,but come on. Agree with this comment of yours as well. Good to see reasonable people. I am Russian by the way
The film I mentioned was 'Tak zhit ni'zya'(approximate orthography) ('We cannot live thus') made by Stanislav Govoryukhin (approx orthography) in 1990. Also worth seeing is his later film 'Rossiya katory m'i poteralis' (ThecRussia We Have Lost). So far as I know, neitehr has ever been shown outside the former USSR. I approached two major British TV networks when I returned home at the end of 1992, urging them to show them, and was met with blank uninterest.
***** Judging by the poor writing of his post, I'd say yes.
@Peter Hitchens I really admire you, Mr. Hitchens. You speak the truth very eloquently. Thanks for not being afraid to go against the group think on an important issue like this.
Are you still a Putin fan? Are you a Trump supporter? These are probably rhetorical questions.
I watch just about every debate I can find, so I've seen a few. But I am constantly impressed with John Donvan as a moderator, I think he does an amazing job!
One of the best thing he does is refocusing the question when he feels one of the debaters have either strayed from it or tries to dodge it. This alone puts he above many other moderators who act more like a chess clock.
Totally agree. As well as the courage to just run the show and keep things civil and moving, "Can I just..." "No!" ;)
FragmaKepi I didn't hear any "refocussing" of questions from Donvan; just the sound of an attention-seeking buffoon derailing the argument when he became impatient with it.
I agree with the overall sentiments about Donvan - moderation seems to come naturally - but saying that - he does get borderline snarky on some of the exchanges .
I like how the debaters claim that a power is marginal if it has a predominantly negative impact. I wonder if they believe, following that logic, that Nazi Germany was a marginal power:)
Very late reply;
but it is not so much that they would prefer that russia were marginal and hence put up the debate, instead it is that it only started to matter considering russia's stance to the west.
i.e. Whether "Russia Is a Marginal Power" or not was only made relevant by the perceived "predominantly negative impact" at the time.
You may be right that some debaters have an agenda with regards to this matter, but the debate itself still retains its utility.
For example, whether Greece, Belgium, etc. were marginal powers are all plausible questions, but it isn't as useful to ask those questions.
If you're having this debate, Russia is NOT a marginal power. Debate over.
not necessarily, Russia has been considered a power for so long it has always been assumed that it was a power. The fact that this debate is present would be indicative of a decline in power that calls into question its prior status as a great power. The results of the debate indicate that Russia is not a marginal power, though obviously neither indications speak with any real authority.
Blahblahblah14898 so because I'm not entirely closed off from the idea that russia might be marginal I am therefore accepting info without reasoning??
They're debating the merits of Russia's power they are very much a regional power they cannot project any strength around the world they have no relevant Navy they have nothing to offer other countries for partnership Russians believe Putin's their strength but he is the reason people want nothing to do with Russia he is an oligarch and he's very much in bed with the banks that's why Bankers own the ruble so if they want they trigger a massive sell-off and Russia's economy dies Russia has its place just for petroleum purposes so they need Russia for now but when they don't watch what happens it will magically hit a crisis which would really be the bankers pulling the strings
Russia really is a declining power. Its economy and population are in steep decline. Power isn't just nuclear power or military power. Its industrial abilities are also in decline. Russia relies heavily on oil and now that there is an abundance of oil Russia is in trouble. Corruption and mismanagement are out of control in Russia.
Its population actually isnt in decline any more, and its economy is doing ok. it doesnt rely heavily on oil except for export revenue.
You are brainwashed
you would not be debating this if russia were a marginal power.
Saurabh Singh That can be said about anything. "You would not be debating 'x' if 'x' did not exist." We wouldn't be debating it if we knew that Russia _isn't_ a marginal power, either. Since it's not a settled issue we're having a conversation about it, but that doesn't imply that Russia is not a marginal power, or that it is.
Sadly, the same debate could be had on basket case countries such as North Korea...they mather because they will, or have weapons of mass destruction...Russia with Rasputin at the helm is in te same boat...
They had the debate because the *Sovs* were a world power, and the Russians *still have lots of nukes*.
+Francios Labelle Putin*
if we have not, they bomb as ;) it's clear for me ;)
Question: Why is Russia not a marginal power? Hitchens: I love cricket and I enjoy watching PBS
Well you see cricket grew up as a sport of the British Empire, and that's a reminder that a country's imperial past, such as that of Russia, cannot be easily shrugged off just because of temporary ill fortune such as the loss of the non-Russian republics in 1992... no I can't really work it out beyond that.
They dont share their policy and idéologie therefore they are marginal!!! That is what they call démocratie !!!!
I think they should be some sort of compromise it is getting very dangereuse for the reste of world.
@@MatthewMcVeagh Russia is a very powerfull nucléon power they should be taken seriously, we had enough wars and this one could be the last.
Name a normal country? Jesus Christ I thought intelligence was mandatory to participate in a debate such as this.
He's an absolute degenerate.
I was undecided until that last few words by Edward Lucas on Estonia.
KingQuraish Hehehehe, yeah that was a costly brain spasm ^^
Only one person on this panel, including the moderator, with any sense about them. The gentleman with the orange and black tie. The rest of them resorted to pathos, strawman arguments and oftentimes simply not debating the real subject. The man with the orange and black tie knew what he was talking about. No one else seemed to.
The silly twisted logic Bremmer engages in is schoolboy level.
His argument essentially is that we (US) don't treat Russia like a major player, ergo they must not be one.
When was the last time the Foreign Policy Establishment in America was RIGHT about anything? In fact I take their dismissal of Russia as a great endorsement.
Also Hitchens point regarding what is truly happening here is so important ie a battle between globalism\liberalism vs nationhood\tradition.
I know who's side I'm on. Putin Riot all the way.
I quite agree. Bremmer is proof positive that academic standards have been utterly debauched. He's an irritating little jerk.
Khayyam1048
That voice! He whips himself into a nasally frenzy as he speaks also, yuck.
You all need to read more. Putin has always searched for stability and normalcy because they haven’t been relevant in 28 years.
Yeah this is the 3rd debate I've watched that he's been a part of and I've been unimpressed by his performances in all.
Only Russia is capable of being insignificant , and being the central topic in world's internal and international politics
TocTeplv haha, exactly ;)
Unfortunately if a petulant idiot keeps smashing everything around them the rest have to step in and ground them. Doesn’t make it significant, makes it an annoyance.
You're always up against it when debating Peter Hitchens.
Peter Hitchens isn't as clever as he thinks he is... He's making some good points, but he's rambling a lot, and many of his conclusions are classical journalist bulletpoints rather than deep analysis. He's certainly not as great a debater as his brother.
He's more analytical and less bombastic that Christopher was, but there is no shame in not being as fine a debater as the late great Hitch.
Magnus Nygaard let me guess... you are an athiest... oh wow
El Deez What? What does that have to do with this debate? Is Peter somehow insulting religious people in this debate?
Listen, he's making some good points, but a lot of his argumentation is clearly not as well founded as his opponents', and it's clear he's more of a journalist than a scholar - is all I'm saying.
Magnus Nygaard When it comes to debating and wit, Peter Hitchens is nowhere in vicinity of capabilities of his brother.
Hillarious. The guy just stated that Russia would never have an effect via cyber attacks on the US. I wonder if anyone uses that statement against him now.
Strange that these debates have so few views, they're amazing! I think it has a lot to do with the titles, though; people don't click on them because they don't understand that they're debates. . . . .
This is an absurd debate. The fact that NATO still exists and the US hasn't moved it's whole navy to the pacific, refutes the motion. The US is deploying more of its military to countering Russia than China. The rest of NATO is deploying nearly all of its military power to counter Russia and what it might do. We don't fear Russia only because we are still not enemies like we were with the Soviet Union. If relations get that bad, the 1,500 nuclear weapons it is aiming at us would be a sword of Damocles that would concern us on a daily basis like it did in the Cold War. People were not terrified during the Cuban Missile Crisis because they cared about the Soviet economy or how many friends they had.
calling worlds biggest nuclear arsenal country" a marginal power"?!....WTF
+hmcccpp, isn't that living in the past? (i.e. the Cold War). And Russia doesn't have that many more nuclear weapons than us, especially considering what is used to be.
+hmcccpp An arsenal they can never use. To do so would be suicide for them and the rest of us.
It's quite obvious my comment on this debate is considerably late but I myself just finished viewing the debate video and reading the posted comments and would like to add my opinion. The comments involving Russian military and nuclear capabilities saying anyone considering the world's leading nuclear power, from a numbers standpoint, a marginal superpower are foolish. The people writing these comments are failing to realize that this debate is being argued on the grounds of if Russia is a WORLD SUPERPOWER in general not just a MILITARY SUPERPOWER and what country would win what war. In order to be labeled a WORLD SUPERPOWER you must be a power in terms of growing and expanding your countries economy, being involved in world trade that rivals other competing countries trade around the world which in return greatly helps that country in strengthening there economy financially and globally. A country cannot label itself a world superpower based solely on military and nuclear power.
Russia neutralised America in syria .not bad for a marginal power
Russia is a marginal power they argue, and yet everyone is afraid of them, hence having this debate in the first place. It's almost like they are trying to convince themselves.
Genius.
Media will hype Russia up for attention.
"a marginal power"??? Such a claim is ludicrous and absurd.
It is a pity that the best question was rejected by the discussion moderator. What can we expect from Russia has of course everything to do with the motion is Russia a marginal power. I cannot understand why he rejected that question.
Vintage Stereo it was FAR from a stupid show but was, in fact, highly informative and was well worth the one hour and forty one minutes I spent viewing it.
Christopher Hitchens would have so loved to have been involved in this debate. RIP Chris.
Christopher Hitchens had almost no common ground with his halfwit brother.
“Russia is never as strong as she looks, nor as weak as she looks.”
P.S. the snobbish ignorance of Peter Hitchens is deplorable
He's generally deplorable, LOL
Peter is a real good american and staver patriot.Deserve to be well paid by his TV channel like any others.America is Now on dead line for his desperate struggle.Loosing afterWW2 all Wars except First Irak war Now Is engage in Everything doing Nothing significant.
@Lasha Russia is Now strong like Never before in his milenial history.Aliance with China is a weakest point of West military dominance because chinnese always was puled out in any game .Never partenership with China Euroatlantic aliance seems to be quit Now in chess mate
All we want American dream but working for us not only for them sayed China subliminal in any action.
Russia is a third rate petrol state. Their banking system is broken, their agriculture system cannot keep up with the population, and their population is about to bust the bank due to a massive decline in the birth rate after the curtain fell. Putin knows Russia is in its final days and he's trying to keep it viable. That's why he wants to expand their borders to pick up resources. In 20 years they will not be able to hang on to much of their former glory. There is two areas of concern - their pool of atomic weapons and their over eagerness to use cyber attacks on other countries for the sake of being messy.
Take a coockie, good boy
the fact that this debate took place proves that Russia isn't a marginal power.
Wow.
Great logic.
Media likes to hype Russia because it gets views.
Russia is currently a joke.
It's laughable to call Russia marginal. When it comes to hard power only the US and maybe China has more hard power. If Russia is marginal every country in the world except the US and China can be seen as marginal. Hard power will always be the most important criteria for power, not economy or soft power.
Russia isn't a great power nor a marginal power. It is a regional power. Russia can only project power within its neighborhood. Russia has no navy capable of combating western nations. It's economy is 13th largest in the world. Down from number 2 during the cold war. Russia is a regional power but also a declining power.
This tie is cool. We decorate everything with ribbons of the same pattern for the Victory Day in Russia.
Power is the ability to influence the actions of others.
That guy, Edward Lucas, senior editor for The Economist...It´s a total British old piece of furniture ridden with woodworms: if you listen to him he drags you into a Rhetoric net: "Name a respectable country wich actually would say good job Vladimir..." : a brazen rhetoric question who really say "If you are not against Russia, you are not 'respectable'.
Then he states the unwillingness of Russia to join organizations.....He is British! Doesn´t he know about Brexit, and all those decades trying to stop the EU from coming together and implement more common responsibilities? . A really disgusting and shameless troublemaker who loves to sow discord among others.
Reasoning: if Russia is really a marginal power, the self considered powerful countries should be making their military budgets more marginal. Why don´t they?
Vis-a-vis the Russian nuclear arsenal I keep hearing Darth Vader in my head: "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Bozo Clown You're jumping to conclusions.
Bozo Clown Again, jumping to conclusions...
Magnus Nygaard no their not there just Magical TROLLLS.
Ryu Rwar Yeah... My Viking ancestors believed in Trolls... turns out they were right!
the point lucas makes at 1:29 really loses it for him. You can make the same argument about China and India the worlds biggest economies but nobody wants to emigrate there
The fact that cretinously stupid people like Lucas and Bremmer now pass for experts shows how debased our standards of public discourse have become.
Even per capita income is a poor index of real wellbeing given the maldistribution of wealth in developed economies. Quality of life, which is impossible to quantify, is the real measurement.
Why does the moderator speak so much? What's the point of having debaters if one is going to stand there and pontificate?
He is a control freak
Who believe that nuclear weapons and the ability to destroy the world is the most important for the country Russia is a great power!
who believe that the economy and the wealth of population is more important - the issue is resolved on another
I'm about 4/5 in and moments ago the for side, in my mind, basically conceded the entire debate, when they decided to very clearly state their goal post, such that the definition of "marginal" is the nation's propensity for good impact, because anyone can make negative impact. Paraphrased "country's that matter are the ones that make a positive impact." That is categorically absurd to me.
Peter Hitchens was debating everything but the actual motion.
lol @ 1:27:12. the moderator shut that guy down. that's the sign of a good moderator.
Please put Donovan as a moderator for a presidential debate in America!!!
Robert Blackwill carried the opposition in this debate single handedly. Peter Hitchens wasn't much help at all in the context of the motion.
One prominent European leader once said about Russia - "You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
Later he committed suicide in his own capital that was flooded with Russian solders and tanks.
His name was Adolph Hitler.
The anti-marginal group really were talking about Russian influence and nuclear power versus power in the world stage as an economic power, and making a difference in the betterment of the planet, as a whole,. This debate should’ve been bifurcated into influence and power. Taking out nuclear capability, which is a no-winner because no one dares to use it leaves influence, and if you take out influence, then Russia is a marginal power.
I think the whole conflict in this discussion is what WEST think Russia should be, how the WEST actually pictures the right way of managing a country internally and on international level and how Russia actually does her own politics, in her own way. This is not only ideological, but also a problem of mentality. We all tend to forget what our ancestors are.
Nobody pictures Japan for example as weird, because they have great technology, they have enough money, on international level they are highly respected, but if you ever been in Japan (especially if you haven't got any clue what this country is about) you would be stunned by how people are different from what you are used to see in New York let's say. CHINA another example and we can go on for ever. What Peter is trying to say and he picked up the right wording "Russia wants to be left alone to clean up their own mess after the whole Stalin/Cold War era" and not being constantly being told what to do. If you are born in US you will always picture Russia as the greatest enemy, you are being feeded this information all over, it's a fade out from the cold-war era and currently because of the possession of nuclear weapons. But, once you study the history and see the world from different perspective, you see that the truth is more complicated than that.
All West is about Capitalism, not matter what you are being told. Freedom is more less available, but not absolete. US is the leader in this movement. Everyone wants Russia to be Democratic because it is easier to make business with, easier to fall apart , easier to be sold out.
I am not Russian, I just use rational thinking.
agreed. well put.
Russia is a Great Power... but is a declining Great Power it has an income percápita lower than Costa Rica or China with an economy smaller than South Korea, with a population already in decline... however still has a veto in the Security Council and thousand of nukes, and a military capable to project force in the Middle East the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.
Sure whatever, Russia can't even economically recover after troubles
@@littleantukins4415 how is gonna recover from a declining population?.... The Russian economy is already smaller than in 2013.
I'm usually rather fond of Peter Hitchens, but his comment about Ukraine not being a real country was rather outrageous.
Today 30 Dec. 2014 dollar is 59 rubles (as already 80). Saudis said that $ 20 per barrel is OK for them. WTI will go to $45 per barrel,
This will wipe out what works in Russian economy but Saudis will kill US fracking momentum.
That fracking life is only 2 or 3 years, Russia exports oil as 70 % of exports since many decades,
This moderator ruined the debate. Like a baseball umpire that thinks people attend games to watch him officiate,
As a whole Russia is the second power of the world in our time. At the first spot is US. Why do I tell that Russia is the 2nd power? because I have evidence. Russia is the second political power in the world after the US, the first nuclear power, the second space power after US, the second military power after the US, the 6th economy power in the world, among the first 5 cultural and linguistic powers in the world, the first country as far as literacy of population is concerned, the first and richest country as far as natural resources is concerned, the biggest country in the world as far as area is concerened with the largest potentials, among the first 10 scientific powers of the world, first polar power of the world. I can continue this list further. That is why despite at least 3 huge hits which west, which has always feared Russia, has brought about to Russia over the past 100 years(Bolshevik revolution of 1917, WW2 and collapse of the USSR in 1991), Russia is still a supper power and on the rise. I bet you all readers of this comment that if there were not those above mentioned shocks to Russia, Russia's spot was today higher than the US.
Yaroslavl Yakutya >the first country as far as literacy of population is concerned
Patently false.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
inb4 Western propaganda.
A superpower with the GDP of California. *Yawn*
Niks Juhcenko
Go and check UNESCO statistics.Wikipedia is a second sort resource.
Yaroslavl Yakutya Information provided by UNESCO confirms that Russia is not the world leader in literacy.
Niks Juhcenko
Check again
+Yaroslavl Yakutya The US may indeed be the first power, but only because it spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. With a national debt of over 17.6 trillion dollars and rising, this is an unsustainable situation that will inevitably lead to its ultimate downfall.
Russia actions show clearly that russia is not a marginal power.
I think Peter Hitchens forgets what Peter Hitchens was supposed to be debating about in the middle of his rambling stories
The fourth gentleman won the debate in the first minute and a half of his presentation.
Hitchens' anecdotes do not make his point that Russia is a great power.
Remember when Mitt Romney was laughed at during the presidential campaign for saying Russia was the US's number one adversary in the world? Since then, confrontation with Russia has only escalated and that doesn't look so funny anymore.
It does look funny. In fact, it looks absolutely hilarious.
Russia must not be under estimated. Also shouldn't be paranoid about them.
I think the motion is wrongly formulated. Russia is a secondary power, not a major, not a minor. The clue is that it is inbetween.
I would love to hear the results of this debate had it happened today.5/13/17
Patrick van meter,
_Hindsight is a wonderful thing._ :-D
kindly input english subtitles for people cant hear but can read... thank you...
Peter Hitchen's resemblance to his brother (especially in voice and way of speaking) is remarkable.
Blackwill won that debate for the against team. Hitchens seemed more interested in hearing himself speak about things that weren't central to the question. Bremmer has got skills and was interesting to hear speak.
Boy, was the American debater for the proposition wrong about Russion cyber capabilities. This whole debate is ridiculous on its face. Russia's possession of a huge (and modernizing) nuclear arsenal makes the proposition false by a long mile, game-set-match.
From the perspective of 2022, it seems that the negative in the deb ate prevail on whether Russia is a marginal power.
Historian Stephen Kotkin makes the observation that Russia ALWAYS aims to hit above it's weight, and very often fails to do so. That a characteristic going back centuries. In it's aim to punch above it's weight, it always chooses authoritarian rule with the aim of using state power to maximize Russian power and allow it to punch above it's weight.
That observation seemks pertinent today, with the issue in the Ukraine war being whether Russia can prevail in punching above it's weight, or whether it willo again be crushed, as has happened so many times in the past.
Certainly the Russian military, so far, has been acting like a marginal power in the Ukraine war. But that could change, as Russia has often had real military failures in initial military encounters and then come roaring back after reorganizing. That could happen again in Ukraine. Time will tell.
In any case, Russia could already claim victory in Ukraine just by going in a breaking everything in sight.
And then there is the economic sanctions ---will they prove to compel Russia to sue for peace with the West, or vice versa? Hard to tell at this point, and could still go either way in my view.
But Russia, so far, continues to occupy one sixth of the surface of the earth, and that remains significant. Hard to see that Russia can really be a marginal power while commanding that much of the strategic heartland. Indeed, if Russia is defeated militarily or economically in the Ukraine war, there is an argument for propping up Russia as a counterweight to Chinese expansion.
In short, a strong Russia is arguably essential to the West and the United States in particular. I am not at all happy that my country is fighting a war, even an economic war, in Ukraine ----that seems a long way from the North Atlantic part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I would be even less happy with the United States trying to police the many fractious elements of central Asia should Russia be unable to do so.
The FOR side should not have agreed to this debate if they didn't have arguments to support it and mentioning that ESTONIA isn't a marginal power certainly doesn't help their case - except to bury it!
Following the collapse of the USSR, Russia is indeed less important than it was in the last century and the recent rise of China means that Russia has been supplanted as a competitor to the USA, but dropping from 2nd to 3rd (or even lower) in global influence doesn't make Russia marginal.
A more interesting title for this debate would've been "Russia is a DECLINING power", or alternatively, "Russia is no longer a superpower".
As an aside, I prefer debate motions to be phrased as questions rather than statements, hence "Is Russia a marginal power?" is a better title because it's neutral and open ended.
Like a tablecloth, cyanogen chloride spreads. Even if you dig underground, you cannot escape a blast wave.
By the logic of the in favor side the Soviet Union was a marginal power as well. Why because they weren't nice!
Marginal or not, you don't fuck with Russia - deal with it.
It's incredible how much Peter Hitchens looks both like Brezhnev and Hitch.
01:24:32 "Putin has made a satire of himself in his country" Ya right, as if those 80+ percent approval ratings are coming out of thin air.
Meanwhile in America: Obama, Trump, Hilary, Not satirical! A classic case of pot calling kettle black. Didn't know Ian was a standup comedian xD
Amon Ra II You believe those approval ratings? Independent journalists are being suffocated and threatened in Russia. It's no wonder Russian mainstream news tows the Kremlin line. And you fall for it. smdh
Artemis Rafti Look who's talking. If anyone thinks journalists in the west who try to stray from the main narrative aren't being subjected to ridicule and smear campaigns at best, and threatened and even murdered, then they are sheep who's buried their head between their ass cheeks
Amon Ra II FOX News talks shit about Obama every single day. Russian media cannot talk shit about the Kremlin. There's a difference.
Amon Ra II eh... putin developed Russia from the gutter.
Artemis Rafti there is a "russian" radio station called echo of Moscow (эхо Москвы ) where it is not unusual to invite guests who say something like "Putin will be damned" (Путин будет проклят ) and promote NATO nuclear shield in eastern europa without any consequences. The most funny thing is this is a state run station (you can reasearch it on wikipedia and find those videos on YT). And this is only the tip of the iceberg. So it is actually you who live in virtul reality bubble created by your media.
To argue in America that Russia is a major power means that you have some sympathies for Putin, and we all know by now that those sympathies are held by the right wing, partly because of Trump and partly because of the autocratic mentality that has always been part and parcel of that political orientation. Therefore, it's not surprising that two right-wingers would be arguing for the proposition even before Trump. Autocracy and fascism have always been a natural political progression for the right wing. These impulses are in their DNA. Trump's base wears T-shirts with slogans, "We'd rather be Russians than Democrats". They love Russia so much because Putin helped Trump win the election in 2016 and because the country's mostly white, racist, antisemitic, homophobic, and autocratic.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Spain’s. Just not a tier one country.
Think the end result may have been influenced by tactical voting and deliberate indecisiveness in the first vote ;)
Western arrogance on display.
Explain.
american propaganda.
Words cannot describe how hard I face palmed when the young lady at 1:06:59 said that "Pu 'in" can't just invade one country.
1:30:00 Crimea, Georgia, cyberwars on Baltic states, Chechnya - that's your Russian attitude of "staying away from other peoples business"? Hitchens is just ridiculous on this one....
Here is a glimpse into 2019
Russian economy is now a 13th largest economy.
Yeah and that's the definition of a marginal power, especially since they used to be numero 2.
Dimabrat and has a lower GDP per capita than literally the entirety of the civilised and developed world 😄 I’m sure that the people are having a blast, have fun in your hellhole, don’t bother others!
Hitchens really contributed nothing to his side's case.
What was the Russian movie? We can't go on living like this... I couldn't find it, but I'm very interested in watching it
akas.imdb.com/title/tt0100738/?ref_=rvi_tt
Thanks a lot from outer space!
you are welcome, there on the Earth ;)
not anymore its 2017 and Russia is back baby!!
Ian Bremmer, 32:50
Total understanding of the situation, strong argument.
A lot of commenters are saying "look at the nuclear arsenal".
Such ignorance.
Google "potatoes were guarded better".
Might've been useful to define the term "marginal" before hand.
Russian isn't & wasn't the 6th largest economy in the world
Crazy lady at 1:27:10 thinks that the debaters Literally meant a cartoon of Putin.
Why is the audio so awful? Other than the host, the participants are not properly mic’d. WTF… this program was planned…. LMMFAO
So the debate on both sides is argued by one guy? hahahaaha
I think it would have been a much more useful way of framing the debate if the pro side had instead argued that countries which matter are ones that are capable of effecting changes which advance their own country's interests. With all of Russia's obvious power and influence, it does not currently seem capable of improving its position in the world or conditions internally. At least, that's my relatively uninformed take.
I think you should let the world decided whether if Russia is a marginal or a global power
Xuanming Lu Russia has like 3 allies: Belarus, Syria, and Tajikistan maybe. The US leads the largest alliance the world has ever seen. No chance buddy.
by now we should come to terms with one important fact. All this Russia vs US talk is only helping both sides of the arms deals. Billion dollar deals.
Russia gets to sell arms to the "BAD GUYS" and the US gets to sell to the "GOOD GUYS". It is good business. Good convincing business. Good acting by all the actors!! Good job fellas.
Yes,an economy the size of NY state, and demography of decline!!
11:15 In what scope are they supposed to be marginal? Obviously they are a regional power, but it's hard to imagine them being a world power.
Marginality of a country is correlated to whether it's adversaries perceive it's relative power to ultimately force accommodation to the adversary. In other words, to what level will the US go to war with Russia when the US disagrees with Russia. The US would bring war to Syria long before it would bring war to Russia.
I don't understand. Please explain what you mean.
My thought was, the speakers talked almost exclusively about what Russia is or what it would do. My question is, "isn't it more important how we respond?" Relevance is what we think Russia can do to us; and that seems to me the more critical question that motivates our response. Therefore, if we are pushed to act, would we initiate military response to Russia - probably not. In contrast, if we felt that half measures with Syria weren't going to work, would be we use military force against Syria? My conclusion, only to the extent that we don't want to start a war with Russia. Thanks for your interest in my thought. Most people wouldn't care.
Final comment. This position on whether Russia is marginal is more of an issue of what we would do, than what Russia does.
Chris Kenney while I certainly agree that your point would have made a fine addition to the argument I would caution using only military conflict as a representative of power in modern society
death2ignorence I am sympathetic to that point, but the question was about power. In the final analysis any discussion on power has to consider ultimate use of power. The reference to Russia's nuclear weapons addressed this point. if that is so, then how a nation perceives the marginality of another nation is predicated upon whether that nation can ultimately force another nation to respect it's sovereignty. If a nation can function without constraint, it's not marginal. Constraint is a function of other nation's response. Therefore, Russia is not marginal because the US would not seriously consider violent action to compel Russia to conform. Therefore, it's not marginal. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
wow this helped me
I am not a fan of Chris Hitchens but man his brother is definitely not in any resemblance to him.
48:38 ... I wonder if it wold be humiliating for Mr. Bremmer watching his intellectual hubris uttering his judgment under Putin's Manchurian president.
How about Russia supports Europe against ISIS, THE U.S. NOT SO MUCH! # selfinterest
I thought Ian Bremmer had a good closing statement about how Russia has little economic social, cultural, demographic sway in the world. He defined power clearly and that was helpful.
What he's overlooking is how tired the world is with American interventionism and the banking cartel. We have great avenues of influence but we aren't quite as popular as we once were -- we're operating more by force and CIA operation that on popularity and -- or more "coercively" than "coperatively" as he put it -- and I that's very shaky ground and not so differenct from Putin and his nukes.
Both sides argued well except for the "positive influence" statement for the "pro" side.I wonder if the audience was a little predisposed in our scare mongering climate to vote on against the motion.
The one thing that is true that Hitchens kept coming back to is geography. Russia is closer to the middle east and that might mean a lot concerning *pretty big issues like oil, terrorism and Israel* -- those are pretty big things that concern the US and the Western world -- considering that it's not bad that the "for" team won.
One of the best ISDs I've seen yet. Both sides had some strong points, the side saying that Russia was weak though seemed to low ball most of the questions and at times, use comedy as a device to somehow cloud the importance of Russias place in the world, And I can't believe I'm saying this but my favorite speaker was the national advisory to Bush senior, but his partner was not the best partner.
Still, a fantastic debate.
Agree, it was a wonderful debate. I still agree with the conclusion that Russia isn't a marginal power, but at this point I'm starting to wonder if they won't be soon. It's too bad that's not the proposition.
I'd be interested to know what strong points you thought Lucas and Bremmer had. Peter Hitchens did not oppose the motion for the same reasons as his partner but he made far and away the strongest and most internally coherent case for his position of any of the four debaters. Bremmer and Lucas, on the other hand, were frankly an embarrassment to watch.