Are We Prisoners of Geography?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Are We Prisoners of Geography?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/10/are-we-really-prisoners-of-geography-maps-geopolitics
81 comments
It's geopolitics for the masses or geopolitics for people who don't understand geopolitics and foreign powers. Of course it's extremely simplified but there isn't any indication that people with actual power listen to this.
Also not that what he says is even fundamentally wrong. He's a political commentator like any other, only his focus is global politics while the majority of political commentators work on national news. And his audience is mainly random Twitter accounts anyway.
There isn't an issue with people saying their opinion, that's called free speech. The problem is more that we live in an increasingly globalized world where nevertheless the average person has no idea about how socities outside of their bubble work. That isn't Zeihan's fault, if anything he helps getting people to think about these issues, however provocative or crude his takes may be. The issue lies with those people and groups that want to keep the populace dumb, that want them to look at the past instead of the present and future. Those who do not want you to travel and experience other cultures and political systems for yourself. Those who want the average person to regress to a state where they know nothing about what goes on in other parts of the world - all in their little bubble and isolated as commoners used to be. There are elites working towards this not just in authoritarian states but in democracies too.
Also not that what he says is even fundamentally wrong. He's a political commentator like any other, only his focus is global politics while the majority of political commentators work on national news. And his audience is mainly random Twitter accounts anyway.
There isn't an issue with people saying their opinion, that's called free speech. The problem is more that we live in an increasingly globalized world where nevertheless the average person has no idea about how socities outside of their bubble work. That isn't Zeihan's fault, if anything he helps getting people to think about these issues, however provocative or crude his takes may be. The issue lies with those people and groups that want to keep the populace dumb, that want them to look at the past instead of the present and future. Those who do not want you to travel and experience other cultures and political systems for yourself. Those who want the average person to regress to a state where they know nothing about what goes on in other parts of the world - all in their little bubble and isolated as commoners used to be. There are elites working towards this not just in authoritarian states but in democracies too.
I had an instant in a Zeihan lecture where I became convinced of the same thing. He was talking about millennials, and said that the primary millennial piece of fiction is Harry Potter. As a millennial, I had to nod along, that's a true and insightful thing to say about us. Then he described the titular character as, essentially, a special snowflake that doesn't have to work for anything or figure anything out.
Which is just an incredibly bad take. Yes, Harry is a magical character that can do whatever he wants but with a handful of exceptions, so can everyone else in the setting. Harry isn't the protagonist because he can do whatever he wants, he's the protagonist because doing the right thing is scary and he does it anyway. This isn't a take requiring a college level course, that theme is repeated over and over throughout the series, Zeihan's analysis of Harry Potter would only be convincing to someone with the most cursory familiarity with the work. And it's not the kind of bad take one arrives at by skimming the work and not thinking hard enough about it. The likeliest way I see someone coming up with that take is already holding an animosity towards millennials and then coming up with a smart-sounding justification for it.
And if that's Zeihan's understanding of Harry Potter, I can only assume his understanding of the CCP's thirty-year plan is comparable.
Which is just an incredibly bad take. Yes, Harry is a magical character that can do whatever he wants but with a handful of exceptions, so can everyone else in the setting. Harry isn't the protagonist because he can do whatever he wants, he's the protagonist because doing the right thing is scary and he does it anyway. This isn't a take requiring a college level course, that theme is repeated over and over throughout the series, Zeihan's analysis of Harry Potter would only be convincing to someone with the most cursory familiarity with the work. And it's not the kind of bad take one arrives at by skimming the work and not thinking hard enough about it. The likeliest way I see someone coming up with that take is already holding an animosity towards millennials and then coming up with a smart-sounding justification for it.
And if that's Zeihan's understanding of Harry Potter, I can only assume his understanding of the CCP's thirty-year plan is comparable.
Zeihan makes some extremely basic factual errors in his recent book The End of the World is Just the Beginning - the kind that make me distrust everything he says on the topics I lack the knowledge to fact-check.
I wrote a longer review of the book here in the unlikely event that anyone gives a shit: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4994497141?book_show_a...
I wrote a longer review of the book here in the unlikely event that anyone gives a shit: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4994497141?book_show_a...
> Then he described the titular character as, essentially, a special snowflake that doesn't have to work for anything or figure anything out.
Harry literally has a scar marking him as the chosen one, abused by muggle caretakers and unjustly persecuted by his teachers only to triumph over unspeakable evil via hereditary magical powers..
> And if that's Zeihan's understanding of Harry Potter, I can only assume his understanding of the CCP's thirty-year plan is comparable.
Hell heath no fury like a fandom scorned.
Harry literally has a scar marking him as the chosen one, abused by muggle caretakers and unjustly persecuted by his teachers only to triumph over unspeakable evil via hereditary magical powers..
> And if that's Zeihan's understanding of Harry Potter, I can only assume his understanding of the CCP's thirty-year plan is comparable.
Hell heath no fury like a fandom scorned.
You can argue that, but this would already be more deep analysis than described in your parent. I heard this take several times, and it’s basically “harry is a wizard, i. e. a superhero capable of anything, therefore, millenials want to gain everything without any effort, as if by magic”.
The “chosen one” trope is different. You can argue that Harry-Potter-raised people think of themselves as chosen, but it’s an old trope. You can as well say that all christian world is raised on it :)
The “chosen one” trope is different. You can argue that Harry-Potter-raised people think of themselves as chosen, but it’s an old trope. You can as well say that all christian world is raised on it :)
To quote William Shatner to a room full of Trekkies: "Its just a TV show, get a life, losers". Good grief. :P
He made an off hand simile about your favorite childhood book you don't find accurate and therefore he is Voldemort incarnate and literally wrong about everything. You're really only proving his point.
He made an off hand simile about your favorite childhood book you don't find accurate and therefore he is Voldemort incarnate and literally wrong about everything. You're really only proving his point.
Isn't the point here not that Zeihan has the wrong idea about Harry Potter, but that Zeihan has certain conclusions he wants to draw and will force every bit of evidence until it allows him to draw those conclusions? It's really not about Harry Potter at all: to get caught up on the Harry Potter (mis)analogy just because it has a fanbase is really not getting to the meat of the argument.
If you say, in all ernestness that my favourite maths equation; 1+1 equals 436 then I can reasonably judge you.
That doesnt make me a triggered little maths fan boy, it makes you an idiot.
That doesnt make me a triggered little maths fan boy, it makes you an idiot.
> If you say, in all ernestness that my favourite maths equation; 1+1 equals 436 then I can reasonably judge you.
> That doesnt make me a triggered little maths fan boy, it makes you an idiot.
Toucheous Grassous!
> That doesnt make me a triggered little maths fan boy, it makes you an idiot.
Toucheous Grassous!
> scar marking him as the chosen one
which mostly acts as a target cross
> abused by muggle caretakers
many children have grown and are growing up in less than ideal condition
> unjustly persecuted by his teachers
very little so, actually. Most of the penalties were well-earned.
> hereditary magical powers
which he shares with most people in the setting.
which mostly acts as a target cross
> abused by muggle caretakers
many children have grown and are growing up in less than ideal condition
> unjustly persecuted by his teachers
very little so, actually. Most of the penalties were well-earned.
> hereditary magical powers
which he shares with most people in the setting.
> It isn't the Stratfor origin, or the blazenly pro-American optimism per se that concern me
Are you sure about that?
Because all you've written is that Zeihan, who focuses on practical and immediate concerns of demographics, energy and agricultural markets - is obfuscating realities and monopolizing ears.
Eh? As opposed to what or whom?
Here is a three minute snippet from one of his talks from five years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkuhWA9GdCo
What brilliant insights are being crowded out? What specifically is he wrong about?
Are you sure about that?
Because all you've written is that Zeihan, who focuses on practical and immediate concerns of demographics, energy and agricultural markets - is obfuscating realities and monopolizing ears.
Eh? As opposed to what or whom?
Here is a three minute snippet from one of his talks from five years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkuhWA9GdCo
What brilliant insights are being crowded out? What specifically is he wrong about?
I somewhat answered your points with my two other answers in the thread, if you want to look them up first. I've also seen the video in the past. I've known Zeihan since 2016-2017(?) when Caspian Report started citing him.
Trying not to repeat myself, I will go with an example.
Intersperced with what looks like sound analysis, Zeihan often injects his own biases and hopes for a better, American, future. One telling example is his treatment of China -- about to collapse in a decade, and has been for the past seven years for Zeihan. I will wait. Same with some of his figures. He often repeats that Chinese demographic figures are overstated by a hundred millions (most likely girls), says him. It may not be a rabbit out of a hat, but it is unsourced or badly sourced or simply his opinion depending on the day. The excuse here is that the Chinese government is unreliable. Definitely. But it does not warrant such geopolical hand-slamming-the-table assertions. This is why, when it's being broadcast up to the highest echelons of the US government, I am not very happy with Zeihan and people who derive their geopolitical opinions mostly from him.
Trying not to repeat myself, I will go with an example.
Intersperced with what looks like sound analysis, Zeihan often injects his own biases and hopes for a better, American, future. One telling example is his treatment of China -- about to collapse in a decade, and has been for the past seven years for Zeihan. I will wait. Same with some of his figures. He often repeats that Chinese demographic figures are overstated by a hundred millions (most likely girls), says him. It may not be a rabbit out of a hat, but it is unsourced or badly sourced or simply his opinion depending on the day. The excuse here is that the Chinese government is unreliable. Definitely. But it does not warrant such geopolical hand-slamming-the-table assertions. This is why, when it's being broadcast up to the highest echelons of the US government, I am not very happy with Zeihan and people who derive their geopolitical opinions mostly from him.
What about the things Zeihan said five years ago that don't stand out as noteworthy today? His book The Accidental Superpower has an entire chapter arguing that the province of Alberta is likely to secede from Canada and join the US, which hasn't happened yet. Just because some of your predictions come true, that doesn't mean you have a crystal ball.
On the contrary, I'm surprised that geography and climate took so long to take center-stage in understanding and analyzing our world. The previous ignorance of something as fundamental as where we live and what climate we live in seems hubristic, if nothing else.
Land and climate shape our access to food, shelter, clothing, and security. Food, shelter, clothing, security shape everything else.
Land and climate shape our access to food, shelter, clothing, and security. Food, shelter, clothing, security shape everything else.
I disagree. These lines of reasoning have always been there. Logistic thinking, and thus geopolitics, has always [i.e. for at least the past century] taken terrain and climate into account.
Selling the old as new is a basic marketing ploy. And geopolitics isn't immune to this. Clausewitz talked about logistics and terrain, Sir Lawrence Freedman has too, W. Gardner did, Robert E. Pape too (in the optic of air power).
Selling the old as new is a basic marketing ploy. And geopolitics isn't immune to this. Clausewitz talked about logistics and terrain, Sir Lawrence Freedman has too, W. Gardner did, Robert E. Pape too (in the optic of air power).
>I disagree. These lines of reasoning have always been there.
Due to America's geographical impenetrability the threat of military encroachment or invasion is virtually zero.
As such it gets downplayed in political discourse to irrelevance. It's often almost impossible for Americans to see international politics through the prism of geographic threat because it has simply never affected them.
Meanwhile the entirety of the Russian psyche is centered around it (along with many others). The west routinely writes this off as "oh, just propaganda".
The lines of reasoning have been there forever but judging from the number of people who treat geography as a non entity when attempting to explain foreign behaviors, sentiments and attitudes it might as well be a fresh discovery.
Due to America's geographical impenetrability the threat of military encroachment or invasion is virtually zero.
As such it gets downplayed in political discourse to irrelevance. It's often almost impossible for Americans to see international politics through the prism of geographic threat because it has simply never affected them.
Meanwhile the entirety of the Russian psyche is centered around it (along with many others). The west routinely writes this off as "oh, just propaganda".
The lines of reasoning have been there forever but judging from the number of people who treat geography as a non entity when attempting to explain foreign behaviors, sentiments and attitudes it might as well be a fresh discovery.
Maybe the previous post meant widespread reasoning? I doubt any of those you mentioned are known by many people.
But that's the point in a sense. Zeihan sells a vision of geopolitics that is what popular science is to science. It is not bad, but it does shortcuts and simplifications to fit in a one-hour talk ala TedX where seats are sold for four or five figures.
It was fine until Zeihan and co started getting the mic at institutions like the US military academies or some congress special interest groups. I'm unfavorable when popular [discipline] may swing around to influence what it was meant to cover.
It was fine until Zeihan and co started getting the mic at institutions like the US military academies or some congress special interest groups. I'm unfavorable when popular [discipline] may swing around to influence what it was meant to cover.
Clausewitz is a well-known military theorist, usually mentioned in the same sentence with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli.
> It isn't the Stratfor origin
Is there something wrong with Stratfor’s analyses? Are there better intelligence outfits? I have long been disappointed at news organizations and their focus on advertisers over the needs of subscribers/readers. Are there useful paid intelligence services?
Is there something wrong with Stratfor’s analyses? Are there better intelligence outfits? I have long been disappointed at news organizations and their focus on advertisers over the needs of subscribers/readers. Are there useful paid intelligence services?
CSIS on YouTube is okay-ish, atlantist so to take with some grain of salt sometimes.
Personally, I liked the podcast of the Chair of War Studies at King's College: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/warstudies/war-studies-podcast (note: I've not listened to any potentially new episode for the past 2-3 years).
Personally, I liked the podcast of the Chair of War Studies at King's College: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/warstudies/war-studies-podcast (note: I've not listened to any potentially new episode for the past 2-3 years).
They don't know Cyber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor#2011_hacking_incident
Posers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor#2011_hacking_incident
Posers.
I don't like geographical determinism. Yes, geography is important. No it is not the sole determining factor.
It is very good at confirming pretty much anything but is awful at predicting future events. Pseudo-scientific tosh akin to Freud.
It is very good at confirming pretty much anything but is awful at predicting future events. Pseudo-scientific tosh akin to Freud.
I can't think of any nation state that was able to surmount its geography on a long-enough timeline.
The US is the exception that confirms the rule, but mainly because it managed to basically conquer/occupy a continent-size territory, from ocean to ocean.
Russia did try the same thing, that's why they managed to reach the Pacific pretty early on, comparatively speaking, i.e. in the late 1600s - early 1700s. It was on the Western side and partially on the Southern side where that wasn't achievable.
Late in her life Catherine II (or people close to her, anyway) did dream about having 6 Russian capitals scattered around the Euroasian continent, including in Berlin and Vienna, but that was not achievable (and still isn't, I'd say). Stalin immediately post-WW2 came pretty close to it, though. On the Southern side there were the issues with the Caucasus, Iran/Persia and present-day Afghanistan, which had conflicting results and outcomes for Russia/USSR.
Russia did try the same thing, that's why they managed to reach the Pacific pretty early on, comparatively speaking, i.e. in the late 1600s - early 1700s. It was on the Western side and partially on the Southern side where that wasn't achievable.
Late in her life Catherine II (or people close to her, anyway) did dream about having 6 Russian capitals scattered around the Euroasian continent, including in Berlin and Vienna, but that was not achievable (and still isn't, I'd say). Stalin immediately post-WW2 came pretty close to it, though. On the Southern side there were the issues with the Caucasus, Iran/Persia and present-day Afghanistan, which had conflicting results and outcomes for Russia/USSR.
The US is hardly an exception. It conquered the west, invaded Mexico and even tried to invade Canada once precisely because of this geographical determinism.
Its later stability is a testament to just how geographically secure its borders are.
If, in an alternate timeline, America was a weakened ex super power and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact I imagine it would take all of 5 minutes for the tanks to roll into Vancouver.
Its later stability is a testament to just how geographically secure its borders are.
If, in an alternate timeline, America was a weakened ex super power and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact I imagine it would take all of 5 minutes for the tanks to roll into Vancouver.
The US became the US after all the events that you mentioned, I’d say that after 1865.
As I said, Russia has been on the same quest of finding insurmountable natural borders that would have defined for it for good, but geography doesn’t help it. And during that quest it also tries to re-define itself in order to reach its final form, so to speak, again, much as red US had done.
As I said, Russia has been on the same quest of finding insurmountable natural borders that would have defined for it for good, but geography doesn’t help it. And during that quest it also tries to re-define itself in order to reach its final form, so to speak, again, much as red US had done.
Main stream writing on the topic is motivated to focus on the GEO in geopolitics, because talking about geographic features and demographic pyramids is cleaner than wading into politics, especially when intermingled regional foreign politics. But the POLITCS does a lot of heavy lifting, whereby politics influence things like tech innovation/adoption that can tame geography, i.e. restitive frontier regions being incorporated by rail infra, mass public works or inventions like AC/desalination make improving previously inhospital/unpassable geography. Or in defense, gunpowder/mechanization mitigated overwhelming advantage of static geo based defense, and similarly going forward, long range precision strikes (conventional ICBMs / advanced rocketry) will reduce all global favourable geo conditions to extreme vunerability. How will US preeminence fare if she has no impenetrable homeland to operate from etc.
Why Russia is invading Ukraine, RealLifeLore, YouTube, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33019630
I thought this video explained exceptionally well. Also includes analysis of oil-and-gas as a contributing factor.
I posted it a few weeks ago. It was published before the start of the war.
I thought this video explained exceptionally well. Also includes analysis of oil-and-gas as a contributing factor.
I posted it a few weeks ago. It was published before the start of the war.
Sam Harris in his Making Sense podcast interviewed Timothy Snyder [1] about this topic, they had a decent dive into the history, relationship between the countries and meaning of the war for both sides.
1. https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/301... the interview starts at about 13:30.
1. https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/301... the interview starts at about 13:30.
If it is flatlands you need to invade? I don’t buy it.
It is interesting that changing military capacities have changed the impact of geography on politics and war.
What really gets me are some of the things that have not changed. Resources make nations weak. Interconnection with other nations in trade, research, and development makes nations strong. Now more than ever Russia has the potential to leverage its lack of resources and connections with European and Asian countries to become the kind of major global power that it wants to be. But the only way to do that is to give up on old ideas about geography, power, and wealth.
What really gets me are some of the things that have not changed. Resources make nations weak. Interconnection with other nations in trade, research, and development makes nations strong. Now more than ever Russia has the potential to leverage its lack of resources and connections with European and Asian countries to become the kind of major global power that it wants to be. But the only way to do that is to give up on old ideas about geography, power, and wealth.
Visiting this link gave me a consistent "Gah. Your tab just crashed." in Firefox (tried 3 times). And it seems to be happening more often lately. Is this just me?
Firefox Android seems to often crash on the Guardian for me and I have not been able to work out why or find anyone else talking about it.
I have this exact problem. I think there is some sort of memory consumption problem and the Android version of the oomkiller jumps in
Only see this on the guardian and only on mobile
Only see this on the guardian and only on mobile
In general, or just on the Guardian? Anyway, doesn't happen here on FF 107 und Linux with µBo. With always fresh cookies.
(Works for me on firefox, windows 10. Although Firefox is ridiculously unstable for me in general)
> Last year, Russia was at peace and enmeshed in a complex global economy. Would it really sever trade ties – and threaten nuclear war – just to expand its already vast territory?
Er, no? This article too chooses to turn a blind eye to Russia occupying Crimea and supporting the separatists in Donbass well before last year, just because the West failed to react appropriately at that time. Which of course emboldened Putin to go all in and try to occupy all of Ukraine.
Er, no? This article too chooses to turn a blind eye to Russia occupying Crimea and supporting the separatists in Donbass well before last year, just because the West failed to react appropriately at that time. Which of course emboldened Putin to go all in and try to occupy all of Ukraine.
> occupying Crimea
> the West failed to react appropriately at that time
As someone born in Crimea I always failed to understand why it’s the West’s business.
As someone born in Crimea I always failed to understand why it’s the West’s business.
Because the occupation of Crimea gave Russia the idea that an invasion and war in Ukraine would fail to cause a significant reaction, and the war in Ukraine has been highly disruptive.
Note that "react appropriately" doesn't necessarily mean "military support", just things like sanctions and reducing energetic dependence on Russia would have already signaled that more incursions wouldn't be well received.
Also, there's the part about military occupations being considered generally bad. We might want to care about that.
Note that "react appropriately" doesn't necessarily mean "military support", just things like sanctions and reducing energetic dependence on Russia would have already signaled that more incursions wouldn't be well received.
Also, there's the part about military occupations being considered generally bad. We might want to care about that.
>Also, there's the part about military occupations being considered generally bad.
It was considered a triumph in Kosovo.
Nobody was bothered about NATO troops using military force to make a secessionist referendum happen. Because we did it.
Nobody was bothered that the Serbian constitution prohibited an independence vote. Because we held the vote.
Nobody questioned the result - also 90% - same as Crimea. Because we wanted that vote.
Kosovo's notional independence was as sparsely recognized as Crimea's for decades, even among supposed allies. We didn't play that up as an indication of our friendlessness though - because we did it.
The most substantial difference - that Kosovo ended up a puppet state (Pristina being bisected by "Bill Clinton boulevard" ought to be a clue as to by whom) while Crimea was incorporated directly.
Realistically the conflicts mirror each other much more closely than most people believe. That includes the reason why the west and Russia care deeply about both conflicts and both referenda while neither gives a shit about, say, the Tigray war - because THESE two conflicts dictate Russian and American spheres of influence.
It was considered a triumph in Kosovo.
Nobody was bothered about NATO troops using military force to make a secessionist referendum happen. Because we did it.
Nobody was bothered that the Serbian constitution prohibited an independence vote. Because we held the vote.
Nobody questioned the result - also 90% - same as Crimea. Because we wanted that vote.
Kosovo's notional independence was as sparsely recognized as Crimea's for decades, even among supposed allies. We didn't play that up as an indication of our friendlessness though - because we did it.
The most substantial difference - that Kosovo ended up a puppet state (Pristina being bisected by "Bill Clinton boulevard" ought to be a clue as to by whom) while Crimea was incorporated directly.
Realistically the conflicts mirror each other much more closely than most people believe. That includes the reason why the west and Russia care deeply about both conflicts and both referenda while neither gives a shit about, say, the Tigray war - because THESE two conflicts dictate Russian and American spheres of influence.
It's Europe's business when a European country launches a European war of conquest. See: WW2 for what can happen when you just ignore fascist wars of conquest.
What’s fascist is to ignore what people living in some place think about it.
This is not fascist.
Most countries are made in a way to not allow parts of their territory to secede, even if they "want to do it". Just look what happens in Spain with Catalonia, what would probably happen in Scotland, Texas or California. This is not fascist.
But, you are ignoring the fact that Crimea did not decide to secede but that Russian soldiers (without insignia) became little green men, they forced Ukrainian army to surrender their weapons and leave Crimea. After that Russia organized "a referendum" where Crimea voted to join.
How well these referendums work we can see in Kherson.
Most countries are made in a way to not allow parts of their territory to secede, even if they "want to do it". Just look what happens in Spain with Catalonia, what would probably happen in Scotland, Texas or California. This is not fascist.
But, you are ignoring the fact that Crimea did not decide to secede but that Russian soldiers (without insignia) became little green men, they forced Ukrainian army to surrender their weapons and leave Crimea. After that Russia organized "a referendum" where Crimea voted to join.
How well these referendums work we can see in Kherson.
>But, you are ignoring the fact that Crimea did not decide to secede
It absolutely did. The 90% vote matched our subsequent polling taken a year later - almost exactly and the western pollsters certainly didn't use little green men.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a...
Much like in Kosovo the presence of the superpower's troops simply allowed the vote to happen.
Ukraine makes no secret of the fact that it doesn't want a free and fair vote to be run (it's "unconstitutional" to have a vote, they argue North Korearly) and neither do we.
That, along with the public bitchslap Elon Musk got for suggesting a vote, highlights the dim view the west takes on allowing democracy in the south and east of Ukraine.
It absolutely did. The 90% vote matched our subsequent polling taken a year later - almost exactly and the western pollsters certainly didn't use little green men.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a...
Much like in Kosovo the presence of the superpower's troops simply allowed the vote to happen.
Ukraine makes no secret of the fact that it doesn't want a free and fair vote to be run (it's "unconstitutional" to have a vote, they argue North Korearly) and neither do we.
That, along with the public bitchslap Elon Musk got for suggesting a vote, highlights the dim view the west takes on allowing democracy in the south and east of Ukraine.
> But, you are ignoring the fact that Crimea did not decide to secede but that Russian soldiers
I’m not so desperate to pick a side here. It’s absolutely right that Crimean secession wouldn’t be possible without Russian military intervention. And yes, it’s illegal from Ukraine’s point of view. At the same time, it’s legal from Russian point of view. Who’s in the right?
Now, NATO member states have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to explain why it’s all right for Kosovo or Taiwan, but not for Crimea. You have to agree that Taiwanese de-facto independence wouldn’t be possible without the US involvement.
So my point is, there has to be consistency.
I’m not so desperate to pick a side here. It’s absolutely right that Crimean secession wouldn’t be possible without Russian military intervention. And yes, it’s illegal from Ukraine’s point of view. At the same time, it’s legal from Russian point of view. Who’s in the right?
Now, NATO member states have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to explain why it’s all right for Kosovo or Taiwan, but not for Crimea. You have to agree that Taiwanese de-facto independence wouldn’t be possible without the US involvement.
So my point is, there has to be consistency.
> Just look what happens in Spain with Catalonia, what would probably happen in Scotland, Texas or California. This is not fascist.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it will. The UK isn’t like Spain. It doesn’t believe in itself. The US looks like it does so it would likely be willing to wage a war of occupation. The US is far more nationalist than the UK.
If Scotland votes to leave the UK it will. The UK isn’t like Spain. It doesn’t believe in itself. The US looks like it does so it would likely be willing to wage a war of occupation. The US is far more nationalist than the UK.
If Scotland becomes independent, it won't be because the UK doesn't believe in itself, it's because the UK believes it's a democratic and consensual union. Believing in democracy the way the UK does can only happen if it has consequences. (Other countries have other ideas about what democracy means; I don't mean to say they don't believe in democracy because they draw different conclusions.)
Even the Scottish and Catalonian referenda were different: The Scottish referendum happened with the toleration of the central government, whereas the Catalonian referendum was ruled unlawful and widely boycotted. This was precisely because the UK believed in itself. Spain had a different understanding of itself - equally strong - and didn't want to go to the polls for it.
Even the Scottish and Catalonian referenda were different: The Scottish referendum happened with the toleration of the central government, whereas the Catalonian referendum was ruled unlawful and widely boycotted. This was precisely because the UK believed in itself. Spain had a different understanding of itself - equally strong - and didn't want to go to the polls for it.
Yes, and the Sudeten Germans loved the Nazi German annexation of the Sudetenland, but it was still a criminal and deplorable act that led to WW2 and innumerable crimes. Ethnic nationalism as an excuse for wars of conquest doesn't really fly any more, we've learned it's a dead end, and that's why Europe cares, especially as Russia is clearly a fascist state at this point! Hope that helps.
> clearly a fascist state
I think everyone is very confused with what “fascist” means. Some say not having a gender-neural bathroom is “fascist”. But anyway, it seems you’re very set on not liking someone, so it’s better to leave you alone.
I think everyone is very confused with what “fascist” means. Some say not having a gender-neural bathroom is “fascist”. But anyway, it seems you’re very set on not liking someone, so it’s better to leave you alone.
Russia might not be fascist in the most exact technical political sense, but it's an autocratic government that is currently launching missiles at the civilian infrastructure of another country to directly and indirectly harm civilians. Not sure what else you want? Doesn't matter what any other country has done up to this point, they are doing that right now, not hitting military targets, civilian ones, by choice.
> Not sure what else you want?
This is truly tragic, I feel for civilians. As an EU resident, I want the EU to take actionable steps and achieve peace. Alas, I don’t see it happening. Everything that’s been done only led to escalation.
P.S. destroying civilian power infrastructure was one of the first things US-led coalition did in the Gulf War. Yes, it’s horrible for civilians, but you can’t ignore the fact it has a military purpose. Disrupting the energy balancing will have direct consequences for Ukrainian armed forces as they use rail for shipping ammo, weapons and personnel.
This is truly tragic, I feel for civilians. As an EU resident, I want the EU to take actionable steps and achieve peace. Alas, I don’t see it happening. Everything that’s been done only led to escalation.
P.S. destroying civilian power infrastructure was one of the first things US-led coalition did in the Gulf War. Yes, it’s horrible for civilians, but you can’t ignore the fact it has a military purpose. Disrupting the energy balancing will have direct consequences for Ukrainian armed forces as they use rail for shipping ammo, weapons and personnel.
I like Russian people, I work with many here in Germany where many live, in my experience they're much more friendly than the average German that's for sure. But no, I don't like your fascist state, and I can't imagine I would like anyone who would defend Russian imperial conquests.
I understand your sentiment. I think it would be more appropriate to say that “the world” should react, not “the West”.
And its world’s business if some country unilaterally declares other’s country part as theirs.
Although I think the world reacted appropriately. Non-trivial sanctions were imposed, almost no other country recognised the change.
Of course, Crimea issue is just another example of conflict of “territorial integrity“ vs “right to self determination” principles. World needs more formal rules.
(В любом случае, как мне кажется, справедливый референдум включал бы вариант «независимая Крымская Автономная Республика».)
And its world’s business if some country unilaterally declares other’s country part as theirs.
Although I think the world reacted appropriately. Non-trivial sanctions were imposed, almost no other country recognised the change.
Of course, Crimea issue is just another example of conflict of “territorial integrity“ vs “right to self determination” principles. World needs more formal rules.
(В любом случае, как мне кажется, справедливый референдум включал бы вариант «независимая Крымская Автономная Республика».)
> Of course, Crimea issue is just another example of conflict of “territorial integrity“ vs “right to self determination” principles. World needs more formal rules.
This is the key point that most people overlook. There’s a lack of consistency on every side of the argument. Like, I absolutely despise Russians who say that say “Crimea is Russia, but Kosovo is Serbia”.
This is the key point that most people overlook. There’s a lack of consistency on every side of the argument. Like, I absolutely despise Russians who say that say “Crimea is Russia, but Kosovo is Serbia”.
> a blind eye to Russia occupying Crimea
The Russia military was "occupying Crimea" back when there were British redcoats occupying New York City. The Russian military has been there since that time. The only new development has been the US, UK, with some continental support, demanding the Russians leave in recent times and pouring financial and military supplies into the Ukraine to accomplish this.
Also if we want to go back to the 1700s, then Russia should hand Crimea over to Turkey, not the Ukraine, because Ottoman Turkey is who occupied Crimea before Russia.
The Russia military was "occupying Crimea" back when there were British redcoats occupying New York City. The Russian military has been there since that time. The only new development has been the US, UK, with some continental support, demanding the Russians leave in recent times and pouring financial and military supplies into the Ukraine to accomplish this.
Also if we want to go back to the 1700s, then Russia should hand Crimea over to Turkey, not the Ukraine, because Ottoman Turkey is who occupied Crimea before Russia.
Putin invaded Ukraine to secure his own rule (or rule of his clique). It has nothing to do with geopolitics - it is about staying in power.
After the Orange Revolution Ukraine started moving towards the West, approached European Union (lots of Ukrainians work in Poland and rest of EU) and started to fight with corruption.
This 'westernization' process started to slowly make Ukraine richer.
A rich Ukraine is an end of Putin's rule, because average Russians would realize that Russia could be a normal country too and they could be rich too, instead of living without toilets and being robbed by oligarchs. But in order to do that they would have to get rid of Putin and his clique.
So Putin tried to conquer Ukraine and when this failed, plan B is to ruin its economy.
This way Ukraine is as poor or poorer than Russia. This way Putin can secure his power.
After the Orange Revolution Ukraine started moving towards the West, approached European Union (lots of Ukrainians work in Poland and rest of EU) and started to fight with corruption.
This 'westernization' process started to slowly make Ukraine richer.
A rich Ukraine is an end of Putin's rule, because average Russians would realize that Russia could be a normal country too and they could be rich too, instead of living without toilets and being robbed by oligarchs. But in order to do that they would have to get rid of Putin and his clique.
So Putin tried to conquer Ukraine and when this failed, plan B is to ruin its economy.
This way Ukraine is as poor or poorer than Russia. This way Putin can secure his power.
> This 'westernization' process started to slowly make Ukraine richer.
I don’t think Ukraine reached even the pre-2014 prosperity levels by February 2022. You need to separate wishful thinking and hard data.
I don’t think Ukraine reached even the pre-2014 prosperity levels by February 2022. You need to separate wishful thinking and hard data.
Thinking is good, but why "think" when you can just check the facts? Follow your own advice on hard data.
I agree, I also think the failed protests in Belarus were a driving factor. He could see what an uprising might look like and that time was limited.
Not necessarily correct.
The reason of the invasion might be because of russian adherence to the heartland theory, creating defensive depth.
Might be Putin's megalomania, need for approval rating back home, maybe the oil prices rose and they took the opportunity, maybe to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU/NATO.
Could be a thousand and one differing things, or all of them at once.
What is correct? No one but Putin (and maybe not even him) knows.
Might be Putin's megalomania, need for approval rating back home, maybe the oil prices rose and they took the opportunity, maybe to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU/NATO.
Could be a thousand and one differing things, or all of them at once.
What is correct? No one but Putin (and maybe not even him) knows.
Putin is the byproduct of Russia’s experience with the ‘Westernization’ process
You are actually right, but it is not contradictive in any way to what I wrote.
'Westernization' of Ukraine is a problem for Putin, since Russians could realize that Russia can have a much better government that would make life of normal people better (now hundreds of them die in Ukraine every day, while oligarchs rob the nation).
Putin got into power since 'westernization' of Russia failed (also helped that KGB blew up some apartments). Different thing is that this 'westernization' was poorly done if not sabotaged from the start. Also the clique that rules Russia (including Boris Yeltzin) was never interested in 'westernizing" Russia. They just wanted to be rich and powerful. Gorbachev was the one that tried to move the country forward, one thing is if the country was even ready for that, other thing is that in many ways he failed.
Also Ukraine is not Russia. Ukrainians are the ones who can decide what will their country do - and they decided to move closer to the West.
'Westernization' of Ukraine is a problem for Putin, since Russians could realize that Russia can have a much better government that would make life of normal people better (now hundreds of them die in Ukraine every day, while oligarchs rob the nation).
Putin got into power since 'westernization' of Russia failed (also helped that KGB blew up some apartments). Different thing is that this 'westernization' was poorly done if not sabotaged from the start. Also the clique that rules Russia (including Boris Yeltzin) was never interested in 'westernizing" Russia. They just wanted to be rich and powerful. Gorbachev was the one that tried to move the country forward, one thing is if the country was even ready for that, other thing is that in many ways he failed.
Also Ukraine is not Russia. Ukrainians are the ones who can decide what will their country do - and they decided to move closer to the West.
The westernization of Ukraine is well funded only because The West is interested in defeating Putin. For Russians if they capitulate again there will be no enemy against which for them to be well funded by the west, and it will again be just as terrible as the first time. The countries in the middle have to hope of playing both sides, but for Russians there is no other side to rally with the west against.
Answer: no.
Seems like a classic rule of headlines: If the headline is a question, the answer is most likely "no". If the answer was "yes", the headline would be a click-baiting statement ("We Are Prisoners of Geography!").
It is: Betteridge’s Law of Headlines.
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headline...
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headline...
You can also rephrase anything to be a question. Or even a question that sounds silly, so that people say no.
There's also "No, we are not prisoners of geography".
That would sound a lot like:
"No, the aliens have not enslaved the Earth"
"No, the atmosphere is not on fire from nuclear testing"
"No, 2 + 2 is still not 5"
I ask you what is two plus two, and you tell me "it's not 15"?
We obviously are.
I have more in common with the punks in Poland than with the conservatives that vote with me here in my city.
I have more in common with the punks in Poland than with the conservatives that vote with me here in my city.
It isn't the Stratfor origin, or the blazenly pro-American optimism per se that concern me. It is that these analyses feel like oversimplifications, to not say dumbing-downs -- talks of geographic predestinations. And they are taking some center stages in lobby circles.
I fear that they [these types of analyses], however enticing and conforting to a Western ear they may be, might obfuscate realities. Them monopolizing the ears of politicians and business leaders alike can only bite us back.