I gathered from this discussion that a key point for the speakers was the geopolitical determinism claims of "Realism" and flowing from this that Putin is a particular Russian leader, not a generic Russian leader. While that is true, is also true that the current CIA Director, William Burns, was the ambassador to Russia at the time we pushed NATO to seek out Ukrainian and Georgian membership. He transmitted to Washington that the view was unanimous among Russian politicians that Ukraine adhesion to NATO was viewed as entirely unacceptable and a casus belli. Because of this, Burns vehemently opposed further pursuit of that goal. Would any other Russian leader have made these specific moves? That is impossible to assess. But the alternatives to Putin are not as different from him in outlook as Merkel is from Hitler. Why was it desirable to provoke Russia? There is no sensible answer to this question.
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
> Why was it desirable to provoke Russia? For Christians, reality, life, mind, free will, happiness and individual rights are provocations. Either destroy its political/cultural power or its blood-drenched history will return. Some US Christians want to legally murder women who abort. The 16th and 17th century intra-Christian European wars which so horrified thee US Founders-wall of separation-murdered more people in the involved nations than WW2. The Enlightenment put a rational stake in the heart of Christianity , thus America. Modernist-nihilist philosophers, basically, Kant, pulled out the stake and we got Marxism, Nazism and the rising return of religious nationalism. Moral cowardice is impractical, if one values life. Your political details are an arbitrary chaos of trivia. Even William Buckley, Jr. condemned conservative conspiracy theorists as knowing with whom David Rockefeller had lunch last Tuesday but not the role of ideas in history.
@charlesiragui2473
2 жыл бұрын
@@TeaParty1776 I am not sure how your critique of Christianity connects to my comment. Do you view the actions of the US with regards to Ukraine membership in NATO as the Enlightenment pushing back Christianity? Or rather, is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in your opinion a Christian war on the Enlightenment? I am antiwar and see prevention of war as a core value, though not the only value. It appears from the available data that US foreign policy actors actively sought conflict with Russia through Ukraine. I oppose that.
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
@@charlesiragui2473 > is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in your opinion a Christian war on the Enlightenment? Yes. Why is my comment unclear? Putin is explicit in condemning the West, tho he evades or is ignorant of the Enlightenment/modernism difference. >I am antiwar and see prevention of war as a core value, though not the only value. Thats an arbitrary selection of a value. Mans life requires knowing the _most_ core value in a context, not merely _a_ core value. The mind requires a reality-based logic to function as a method of identifying the facts of reality. Consider the precision needed to identify the exact part needed for your broken car. Or to identify the exact part to repair in surgery! > It appears from the available data that US foreign policy actors actively sought conflict with Russia through Ukraine. Your hidden context is modernist nihilism in which all values are equally subjective and equally necessary to sacrifice and compromise. Thus, in your hidden context, individual rights and the violation of individual rights are equally compromisable. Even more, compromise becomes more important than the values needed for life because, in your hidden context, life is not more valuable than death. Thus there is no justification for defending or attacking any value. Thus there are no values, no life as the source of values, only subjective preferences. Who gains from this, the lover or hater of life? Ayn Rand's, _Atlas Shrugged_ is a story about this and the reality-focused, rational alternative. Youve been trying to get high without having to pay. You think you can dance w/the Devil without effect. Reality is out there. Its sneaking up on you wherever you go. Mans life is something specific, w/a specific method to continue in existence. Sacrifice is death-worship. Life requires values.
@charlesiragui2473
2 жыл бұрын
@@TeaParty1776 Thanks for the clarification.
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
@@charlesiragui2473 Glad to help a focus onto reality.
@documenter1199
2 жыл бұрын
please have Professor Mearsheimer on to debate this
@nthonymusic
2 жыл бұрын
Mersheimer would bench press Elan
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
Every drunk, addict and prostitute thinks himself a realist.
@Futhi.Johnson
2 жыл бұрын
Please !!!!
@neilabernath5862
2 жыл бұрын
don't need Prof mearshermier, these guys are making a strong argument for realism.
@documenter1199
2 жыл бұрын
@Jon Little I dont know how you came to a conclusion like that
@ivandate9972
2 жыл бұрын
The big question is ... Why blaming the west is fun to do.
@devalapar7878
Жыл бұрын
Also, let's not forget, Mearshheimer thought Russia wouldn't attack Ukraine.
@SuperTonyony
Жыл бұрын
Russia signed a pact with Ukraine in 1991 to keep the Ukrainian borders--including Crimea--intact. I guess an agreement with Russia isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
@staceykarras6330
2 жыл бұрын
Freedom is a requirement for life. Russia should have not invaded a Free Country. Ukraine requires U and I to bring about freedom. We in the USA are fighting for our freedom also As the Supreme Court is trying to take away Our Freedoms. We must fight for freedom.
@vicvinegar5709
2 жыл бұрын
Hilarious watching Journo’s mental jumping jacks in this weak attempt to discredit
@joshuap9580
2 жыл бұрын
the mafia example is so appropriate to describe russia.
@Kavala76
5 ай бұрын
The mafia explains IR, not just Russia.
@mryouben
11 ай бұрын
Wouldn't a conclusion to Mearsheimer's theory be to have strenghend NATO in a way that Russia would never have dared to attack Ukraine?
@dwl3006
9 ай бұрын
You can strengthen NATO without inviting Ukraine to join it.
@ilhamdepmilum2223
2 жыл бұрын
Have prof Mearsheimer please.
@alexmood6407
Жыл бұрын
This is a lot of wishful thinking.
@vicvinegar5709
2 жыл бұрын
Hilarious watching Journo’s mental jumping jacks in this weak attempt to discredit
@hyperreal
2 жыл бұрын
You're free to provide any semblance of a counter argument
@Oleg-sx5uc
10 ай бұрын
Excellent discussion. 31:01 - "why do they buy this argument?" Because many of them are bought by the country making this argument, so they have some extra cash to buy this argument
@macrosense
2 жыл бұрын
I am incapable of taking Ayn Rand Advocates seriously
@RonaldRemeijer
2 жыл бұрын
This critic on "amoralism" leaves out the looming risk of nuclear war, a horrible scenario of enormous casualties by the initial blast and worldwide death thereafter due to famine caused by the dustclouds. A realist' proposal to give up Ukraine's geography to Russia can as such be considered moral. And were it the case, it would have saved Ukraine from the present destruction. But would Europe have been just as morally willing to accept _political_ migrants instead, I'd hope so.
@hellucination9905
2 жыл бұрын
These clowns in the video are just braindead. Don't entertain them and their pseudo-arguments.
@bishopcruz
2 жыл бұрын
Russia's nuclear threat will not dissipate if they officially take Donbass and Crimea, or say even all of the country. By that rationale, that would mean that Russia would be able to invade any country on its border due to "security threats" real or imagined. Any attempt to curtail said invasions would thus risk nuclear war... so then what... would it be moral to never fight against an aggressor and let them do as they will? First mover would be an immense advantage? Or are only SOME countries worth sacrificing to Russian ambitions?
@RonaldRemeijer
2 жыл бұрын
@@bishopcruz Russia's neighbours are right to be cautious if they care about their survival, precisely because of the nuclear threat. Insubordination without strong and committed allies is suicide.
@76boromir
5 ай бұрын
In that case it's interesting and quite telling that neighboring Finland Nato membership is not so much of a problem for Russia.
@Onetwelvefourth
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@sot11cat
11 ай бұрын
If realism were correct, then Putin, as the actor and agent of Russia's decisions, would have thought: the West is way to powerful for me to fight against, economically, militarily, geopolitically; and this is objectively true, it can be measured (NATO strength, EU+US+Canada+UK+Japan+S. Korea etc. economy, geopolitic influence in UN assembly etc ). Thus, Putin is not a realist, nor realism can explain hos decisions this way.
@dwl3006
9 ай бұрын
Putin isn't fighting directly against the West, so he is still a realist, and you are still wrong.
@terjeoseberg990
4 ай бұрын
There was no attempt to expand NATO into Ukraine. Ukraine, however, wanted to join NATO for protection against Russia.
@terjeoseberg990
4 ай бұрын
If Ukraine was a NATO member, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine. This is therefore NATO’s fault for not accepting Ukraine.
@JonathanRossRogers
11 ай бұрын
24:31 Those Athenians sure knew how to destroy arguments.
@budyharianto8229
2 жыл бұрын
Is he an drama actor?. Niko ?.. His talk is somehow so un natural, un realist....😂
@dukeh32
5 ай бұрын
I find your conversation very interesting, its sad that I cant ask a few follow up questions here. The problem of morality is that in my view morality is something very subjective. You assume, for your argument to work, that morality is universal, or that at least this is something you can vote on and that you would win.
@76boromir
5 ай бұрын
I guess he's argument would win quite easily if there is general consensus that military agression is greater evil than looking and inforcing super power selfinterest.
@devalapar7878
Жыл бұрын
If realism is true, then the West has a right to enlarge Nato too. In the Nato Russia Founding Act, Russia had nothing against a Nato enlargement. They didn't oppose it! Why do people ignore this? Nato enlargement happened after Russia agreed to it!
@dwl3006
9 ай бұрын
Russia was always against NATO enlargement. Do you get off on lying?
@rodmotor
Жыл бұрын
When a minimal, even lazy amount of empathy is applied (ex: Russian bases/military projection/aliance in Mexico, Canada, Cuba etc.), Mearsheimer's Realist position is difficult to argue with. The US and Russia, two countries with very different character, but the reaction would be the same. The argument that Putin is a sort of Hitler-ish figure doesn't really change this power dynamic.
@76boromir
5 ай бұрын
Maybe. But this argumentation will become nothing short of completely impotent if Pootin by any chance ever gets into Haag's ICC.
@jamesking9177
2 жыл бұрын
The problem with the argument presented is that if a foreign power placed war capabilities, say in Mexico that were orientated against the USA, the US would take swift and violent action against the perpetuator. As an example this is what happened in Cuba. The USA views their geopolitical pivotal and take violent action against either aggressors or perceived aggressors. How can the US live by one perspective yet be so blind to the perspectives of another foreign power. It must not be forgotten that US advised the USA in how to pursue the path that the US had taken. Incredibly the methods that were advised by the US led to total impoverishment to the extent that life expectancy dropped by 7 years. The interventions that the US insisted upon resulted in more lives being lost within the former states of the USSR than the total lives lost in the USSR. Sadly the US has moved away from democracy to authoritarianism
@kingkamaro9442
4 ай бұрын
@Jamesking9177 The example of Cuba shows that you don't need to invade a sovereign country and usurp its territory to prevent a rival power from positioning its missiles and military, as Russia is currently doing in Ukraine. The USA has never attacked Cuba; sanctions alone have been enough for the USA.
@georgecosbuc4475
2 жыл бұрын
paper thin counter arguments get him on to have a debate if you really want to make some interesting content
@georgecosbuc4475
2 жыл бұрын
PS Elan dude try and work on your oral presentation skills... time slows down when you present an idea and at the end of your exposition you've said nothing.
@randomguy19954
2 жыл бұрын
The billiard analogy helped me understand the point being made but I don't think this is how realists view the situation. I don't completely agree with John Mears'er but there is something in what he says that NATO expansion is PARTLY to blame. Obviously on the other hand, Putin made the choice to invade which is ultimately unjustifiable despite NATO expansion.
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
NATOs defense of individual rights is the only rational justification of war. To Russian Christian globalists, individual rights is a provocation
@rickfucci4512
2 жыл бұрын
The 14,000 or so Russian people in the Donbas that were killed by Ukrainian factions for not ratifying the US sponsored coup and the massing of Ukrainian groups in the east ramping up this 8 year war has something to do with Putin's decision. And add to that the 2 battalions of Ukrainian groups being trained by NATO to NATO standards every 6 months for the last 5 years?
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
@@rickfucci4512 Ukraine w/all its problems, is much more protective of individual rights than Christianity-dominated Russia. Putin has been explicit in defending Christian war against Western culture. Your history, true or false, is irrelevant. Russian Christians have long wanted global domination. There are many scholarly discussions, some online, on this. The crucified Jesus is an ideal for Christians that has guided tyranny and war since 300 AD.
@nazirbohl7214
2 жыл бұрын
Bunch of bulls
@tomburroughes9834
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent point by Nikos at the end that the moral is also the practical.
@Johnny-P-Good
2 жыл бұрын
Mearsheimer only view Countries. His analisys revolves around States, not individuals. There's nothing bad with that, is not the role of his field. I disagree with him, but I understand why he doesn't pay attention to individuals. On the other hand, Objectivists evolves around individual rights and the role of the State and Politics; is a field that covers politics and individual rights.
@hyperreal
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent discussion
@jameshegel1324
2 жыл бұрын
They really miss the point. Putin has been very clear that it is the placement of strategic weapons, particularly nuclear missiles, in countries next to Russia that is unacceptable.
@jameshegel1324
2 жыл бұрын
The US takes the same position as to other powers stationing such weapons near its borders.
@jameshegel1324
2 жыл бұрын
They critique the theory (or attempt to) and ignore the indisputable facts.
@AssaultSpeed
2 жыл бұрын
But you ignore one big thing, the Russian government is evil, they have no right to complain anymore than the criminal next door has a right to complain or to invade your house because you got a shotgun.
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
Then Russia should stop threats to militarily spread Christianity.
@tennoio1392
2 жыл бұрын
No one is really afraid of nato here in russia. This is bullshit putin propaganda built on top of soviet anti-west propaganda. "Self-defence" argument is a poor way of justifying putin's foreign policy crimes. Btw, he was also very clear that there won't be any invasion of ukraine. Stop taking seriously the words of that thug.
@randomguy19954
2 жыл бұрын
Elan Journo. Sounds like a made up name. I guess he had no option but become a journalist. I'm sorry I'm not mature enough for these conversations. We're all gonna die!!!!
@robertbratescu3219
2 жыл бұрын
This thing about it not being a sacrifice, but actually in EVERYONE'S selfish interest to pay more for electricity because it hurts Putin is an interesting collectivist perspective with an objectivist twist. What happened to the state only being responsible for protecting the individual rights of ITS CITIZENS and letting everything that's economic to the laissez-faire market? Apparently, having the government FORBID YOU from buying Russian commodities is the objectivist's capitalism, the unknown ideal.
@rvc121
2 жыл бұрын
To what part of the video are you responding? Just started watching.
@robertbratescu3219
2 жыл бұрын
@@rvc121 Nikos says at one point that it's not a sacrifice to pay more for electricity bc it's in your interest to make Putin suffer.
@A_friend_of_Aristotle
2 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure where you got the notion that Objectivists believe that government is the only protector of individual rights; your first line of defense is always your own action supported by your own ideas. Government is a secondary line of defense that you agree to accept as a citizen. The sequence of events regarding sanctions against Russia prove this point. Even before governments started imposing sanctions private companies and individuals started breaking ties with Russia. When it comes to the freedom to act, the individual has the right to choose who they associate with. This can also include moving away from a society of people who support a government that restricts their freedoms. Escaping an anti-human society and authoritarian government is the right of all people. Sanctions can (and should) recognize moral principles and can serve the purpose of self-defense; economic sanctions can recognize that a group of people are better off breaking economic ties with another group of people...for the reasons I have stated above. We are better off breaking ties with Russia because our association enables Putin to wage his psychotic and paranoid visions. We are better off trading with people who do not support dictators with ambitions that include military conquest and mass murder. Higher prices for energy and food might be the result, but this is not a sacrifice when the alternative is considered. We should remember this when China is the topic of debate, too. Authoritarianism is the result of an unnatural respect for authority. By unnatural I mean the faithful acceptance of certain ideas and the rejection of all facts that invalidate them. As a person who respects reality, I naturally respect those who respect it, too. The reality is that Putin and Russian culture have divorced themselves from rational human relationships. We - the west - are at war with the ideas that make Russia a reality. All sanctions - both personally accepted and government imposed - against Russia should be imposed against ALL authoritarian governments. We should only do business with people who want to do business with us and who share our moral principles of rational selfishness and our ideals of personal freedom and political liberty. I don't buy the argument that the cost of goods and services are an overriding moral principle. In the long-term, the goods and services you buy from free and selfish people are the cheapest you will ever purchase.
@robertbratescu3219
2 жыл бұрын
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle "We should only do business with people who want to do business with us and who share our moral principles of rational selfishness and our ideals of personal freedom and political liberty. " Yes! Can I do business with Russian INDIVIDUALS who share these values? Nope, bc the government decided that all Russian business is bad. I didn't say what you debunked in your first paragraph, I said that, in objectivism, the only responsibility of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Also, the point of the sanctions was to stop de war and from what I see, they've been failing for 78 days. Companies didn't start pulling out of Russia and Belarus before the sanctions took place, they did it after some of the sanctions were introduced on Feb 24, and certainly not for ideological reasons.
@robertbratescu3219
2 жыл бұрын
@@MIchaelSybi " If the country violates world norms and still wants to use fruits of it, it should be banned." When do we start banning the US, UK, Australia and Poland for invading Iraq in 2003 without a UN resolution and also their supporters, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands & Spain?
@matthewj3892
2 жыл бұрын
The Aynd Rand Institute is great on many things, especially economics, but some on foreign policy can be pure neo-cons (who were ironically former Trotskyites). You'll get the same analysis on foreign policy from them as you would MSNBC, CNN, The Atlantic etc. Big government should not be trusted and is inept at delivering mail, but somehow should be trusted and is very capable of building Jeffersonian democracies in third world nations and retaining a global uni-polar hegemony for our own good. Something doesn't click here. And ignoring the moral costs, how do we expect all this to be funded? Well, the Federal Reserve monetizing debt, which makes the empire seem superficially free to the American people. It all comes back to economics, so how can some Randians be for this type of foreign policy? Especially when the only way to fund it would be to abandon free market principles, as we have done, and America is clearly paying the price for at the pump and with our debt, in the past 20 years. Just my 2 cents.
@BARRIE-Chgo
8 ай бұрын
I disagree who do you like? Where else have yiou seen this? OIn the UK or Israel locationa or Greece? they call out R&D out failurea see how Bush/Clinton/Reagan led to 9/11
@mehrdadheydari7842
2 жыл бұрын
42:25 who he is to tell me what im interested in?
@inhocsignovinces8061
2 жыл бұрын
Words matter: NATO doesn't expand to a country, countries ask to join free-willingly. Russia has no say in an independent country's decision on their defensive policy. Therefore, they are militarily trying to ensure that Ukraine & Georgia are not independent on their defensive policy and that they are controllable from outside, that is, Russia.
@bramanko
2 жыл бұрын
There, you proved it. Russia is in wrong. Now let's handle everything with your "rights based" international politics system and see how it goes.
@bighandg
2 жыл бұрын
The US has carried out military actions 107 times under the Monroe Doctrine. What Russia is doing is no different.
@Charles-pf7zy
Жыл бұрын
@@bighandg 1982 falklands war, why didnt america intervene???
@ghandb
11 ай бұрын
@@Charles-pf7zy America did intervene on the side of the English. Al Haig wasted his time and damaged his reputation with the Reagan White House negotiating a peaceful resolution that Thatcher had no intention of doing. The US provided England all of the aviation-grade octane used by the RAF. It gave them access to the facilities at Ascension Island halfway between the UK and the Falklands. Without the logistics support at Ascension retaking the Falklands might have been impossible as all RAF Vulcan bombers and refueling tankers staged there as did Harriers. The US also rotated a surveillance satellite to the view the Southern Hemisphere.
@drstrangelove09
2 жыл бұрын
Nikos!!!
@exnihilonihilfit6316
2 жыл бұрын
[rOʃa], Nikos? Why do you have such serious problems with the second sound [ʌ] of that poor country?! 😂 It's [ˈrʌʃ.ə], not [ˈroʃə].
@jonathancross781
2 жыл бұрын
Good show, Yes, Moral condemnation of Putin and Russia's actions is necessary, Regan did a lot of damage to the false narratives of the USSR when he christened them plainly, "The evil empire". Direct and uncomplicated and something we could do with more often in public life, catchy, and it stuck. if only there were better people attracted to public life. I am still not clear in my own mind if Regan was a net good for America given his flirting with the religious types and giving them a long-term platform. Cant really blame Regan for the religiosity in America I suppose, it's an older problem. In any event good engaging content, keep up the good work. Whatever Regan was, Putin is something the poor Russians are all to familiar with, he will do nobody any good. As Joe Biden implied time for a change. If only the Russians would listen.
@kapotova
2 жыл бұрын
Russians are not poor. We are not afraid of our president, but we respect him. and vote for him with a majority. you may not believe it. the professor accurately describes reality. Hello from St.Petersburg
@Gorboduc
2 жыл бұрын
The intellectual roots of contemporary realism were mostly laid by the followers of Leo Strauss, especially their flawed readings of Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. (Not that those writers were any good to start with, but the Straussians make them worse - or perhaps better to say they make them all bad in a similar way.) Strauss in turn goes back to various 19th century Germans, mostly ideological hatchet men for the Prussian state like Treitschke. My psychological hunch is that there's a lot of "reaction formation" against either anxiety disorders, inferiority complexes, or repressed homosexuality, because their emotional fixation on appearing tough and masculine, their constant dread of being thought either weak and nerdy or feminine and sentimental, and their rather desperate need to identify with/submit to dominant males is the motivation behind most of their slipshod logic. PS - A series on the differences between Rand and Strauss would be a series I'd definitely watch.
@Gorboduc
2 жыл бұрын
I should say I'm talking about "realism" in America. The theorist of Putinism is of course Alexander Dugin, who is the complete opposite of Rand on literally everything.
@historyandhorseplaying7374
2 жыл бұрын
Those who criticize others for feeling the need to appear tough, have never been in a situation in which their survival or well being depends on being and appearing tough.
@TyyylerDurden
2 жыл бұрын
@@Gorboduc Dugin is a 100% embodiment of Rand's "witch-doctor".
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
Ideas cause psychology. Medieval Christian globalism caused the Ukraine invasion. Realism about what? About life as a whole from a rational perspective? Any fool can be realistic about trivial things, eg, an addict looking for more drugs.
@xyxyx5
2 жыл бұрын
@@Gorboduc Maybe you should read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and understand that to mind ones own business is rational selfishness. I've studied Rand and she would be abhorred at these boobs and what the US has become.
@jameskellogg83
6 ай бұрын
The error that NATO has made with Russia in regard to Ukraine, has been in not being anywhere near aggressive enough. I believe that deterrence is very important. I think that great efforts should be made to either stop bad things from happening or to stop them from getting worse. I think that a major motivator for Putin's actions in regard to Ukraine starting with the 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea, has been his belief that the West is indecisive and scared and that he could get away with doing pretty much anything that he wanted to. I believe that the primary reason for the inadequate reaction of NATO has been fear of a nuclear conflict. Basically, I believe that through nonsensical bluffs and the West's own independent fear, Putin and his cronies have succeeded in cowing the NATO alliance into allowing Russia to seize Crimea in 2014 and begin a new invasion in 2022 that could result in Ukraine's eventual defeat. I believe that the chances of Russia's using nuclear weapons in Ukraine is miniscule at best. If Putin/Russia used nuclear weapons, I am sure they realize that they could easily be "signing their own death warrant" which I very much doubt they have much interest in doing. I strongly believe that corrupt government officials and oligarchs who spend billions of dollars of stolen money on colossal yachts and mansions have very little interest in committing suicide in attempts to keep stolen lands in Ukraine. People who are very interested in worldly goods of great luxury, are expressing a strong desire to go on living. When Russia seized Crimea in 2014, I believe that the U.S. and the rest of NATO should have told Putin in "no uncertain terms", that if Russian forces did not immediately leave Crimea, they would send their military into Crimea and destroy the Russian forces that were present there. If Russia had not complied with that demand, then NATO should have made that threat a reality. These actions almost surely would have prevented the 2022 Ukraine war from happening and could have saved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. In 2022 when U.S. intelligence predicted that Russia was about to invade Ukraine, the U.S. and the rest of NATO should have warned Putin/Russia, that if they go ahead with their invasion, then the combined NATO forces would enter Ukraine and destroy the Russian military that was present. Again, I think that that this action could have very possibly stopped the Russian invasion before it happened. I still believe that the U.S. and the rest of NATO should take direct and aggressive action now in the war in Ukraine. I believe that the combined NATO forces should send into Ukraine a very large military force and destroy the Russian military that is present there. Russia is no longer a super-power and has not been one since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia has demonstrated in Ukraine for all to see, that it does not have a great military. The Russians are well aware that they cannot possibly successfully stand up to the U.S. alone or to the combined forces of NATO. The only real danger that Russia has is a large nuclear arsenal that I would strongly suggest that they dare not use. Confronting Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield would in fact not create "World War III". - This is a myth. The 32 countries that make up NATO versus Russian forces that are present in Ukraine, is not a World War. It is the total destruction of those Russian forces that have invaded Ukraine. NATO needs to "grow a backbone". China, North Korea and Iran are not sending armies to Ukraine to fight "shoulder to shoulder" with Russia. - This is not going to happen. This threat of World War III is little more than nonsense that Russian would dearly love for the West to believe. Russia should be forced to give back to Ukraine, every inch of land that they have illegally seized including Crimea. After all Ukrainian lands have been returned, Russia should be compelled to pay backbreaking reparations to rebuild all of Ukraine that they have destroyed. A stern message needs to be sent to all aggressor nations that all they will receive for their actions is military defeat, isolation and economic collapse.
@nicholettefetsch2245
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you, Elan and Nikos. Excellent presentation.
@JuanCarlos-lq6xd
2 жыл бұрын
If you want to know what they are trying to do just google their names, pseudo-moralism always comes from the same place.
@rvc121
2 жыл бұрын
Who is them, and what is the place?
@hellucination9905
2 жыл бұрын
@@rvc121 Don't play stupid.
@helenab7390
2 жыл бұрын
I prefer Stephen Kotkins take on Russia and that is Russia did the same things well before NATO..
@dwl3006
9 ай бұрын
Contrary to Stephen Kotkin's opinion, Vladimir Putin is not responsible for Russia's actions prior to his presidency.
@helenab7390
9 ай бұрын
@@dwl3006 which presidency the first the middle or this one? He was pulling all the strings when he put the middle one in power...Stephen Kotkin is the professor that has written 3 Books on Russia and has studied it for decades...what's your expertise?
@dwl3006
9 ай бұрын
@@helenab7390 Since you know perfectly well what I mean by his presidency, I'll ignore your rhetorical question. As for Stephen Kotkin, yes, he's a very accomplished author. Do you know who else is a prolific and prestigious author? Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is a professor who has written numerous books on great power politics, and has studied it for decades... what's your expertise? See, you can cherry a pick an expert, or even a few experts to tout your view, but me and anybody else can do the same thing from the other side. So you can sit here and namedrop Kotkin, and I will just see your Kotkin and raise you one Mearsheimer. And if you actually wanted to sit here and compare the arguments by the various experts, Kotkin falls dismally short compared to Mearsheimer. Why? For one, Putin isn't responsible for Russia's actions prior to his reign (Since you want to question what I meant by presidency), despite Kotkin's mental gymnastics. So if you want to understand Putin's actions, look at what he is reacting to, not what Russia did in the past before his reign, which is largely irrelevant or not critical. Or, if you really insisted on Kotkin's view, you could say that Russian history is a history of responding to external threats, and Putin is not different in that regard. Otherwise, I suggest you start holding Biden accountable for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
@alexiveperez4687
2 жыл бұрын
The Soviet Union's worst crime was giving Ayn Rand an education.
@tomburroughes9834
2 жыл бұрын
At least she learned what a hellhole the Soviet Union was and saw it firsthand. Which is why she wanted to avoid it being repeated!
@yianni8436
2 жыл бұрын
A very narrow consideration of the situation to justify one facet of Objectivism over Realisim. Not a word from these two about the morals of thise who killed 14,000 Russian speakers in the Donbass region. Not a word about the morals of supporting Neo Nazis in Ukraine. Rand hated the Nazis.
@ntnnot
2 жыл бұрын
And your source for that number? I've looked at it and I can say you got it wrong.
@bishopcruz
2 жыл бұрын
@@ntnnot A lot of the realists tend to fall for Russian propaganda, and call a civil war a genocide against the russian speaking population of Ukraine. Looking at the number of people who have died in the conflict, there have been deaths on both sides, and the war in Donbass was funded and sparked by Russia attempting to destabilize the new Ukrainian regeme post Maidan.
@AP-od4pr
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent discussion, well done.
@LeftInBama
2 жыл бұрын
14:00 Ummm no.
@avneet12284
2 жыл бұрын
This channel deserves millions of subscribers
@neilabernath5862
2 жыл бұрын
these guys seem to be saying that war is ok if your enemy is a bad guy. realist would say war is ok to defend yourself, or possibly if you can easily crush your enemy. it's really not a moral question.
@devalapar7878
Жыл бұрын
What? Nobody went to war with Russia! Russia invaded a country! Nato countries did everything to please Russia. Hell, they bought all their gas! They made themselves dependant. They didn't want a war! People still think Nato is a offensive treaty! It is not! Every Nato country has its own military. It is not one military. They train together and that is it. If a Nato country is attacked they will help defend the country. But if a Nato country attacks another country, Nato countries are not forced to take a side. And if countries decide to attack another country, they don't need Nato for that. Look at Iraq, it didn't need Nato. UK, US and Australia went into Iraq.
@devalapar7878
Жыл бұрын
If you mean with bad guy, a nation that invades you, then you have to right to defend yourself. War is ok if you can crush your enemy easily? That is bullshit! You probably meant if you cause no damage and don't hurt anyone. That would be still immoral! And yes, morality always matters! All our laws exist because of morality.
@mikefranklin7347
2 жыл бұрын
It’s hard to take objectivism seriously when they’re talking about good guys and bad guys. This is marvel movie stuff, the real world is shades of gray.
@jeviosoorishas181
2 жыл бұрын
I suggest you read Ayn Rand's essay "The Cult of Moral Grayness"....agree or disagree, at least you'll understand that this is a consistent aspect of objectivism.
@kapilkothari6681
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed
@abdourahmanealkhalifa191
2 жыл бұрын
You should have invited Dr. John Mearsheimer to defend realists! Anyhow, he was the only one to predict what happened since 2014!
@jackwilliamatkins5602
2 жыл бұрын
Jesus will divide Russia into four countries
@mehrdadheydari7842
2 жыл бұрын
wait! there is difference between merkels and hitlers germany? how??
@minimaxima2640
2 жыл бұрын
26:03 So Putin is to blame for the people of the Donbas being bombed for eight years?
@TyyylerDurden
2 жыл бұрын
yeap.
@РомановВладимир-ю9д
2 жыл бұрын
Who is Igor Strelkov-Girkin?
@Ushakov_Mykyta
2 жыл бұрын
He started the conflict in the first place, so yes, he is to blame. There was no violence between people of Donbass and the rest of Ukraine before Russians showed up
@TyyylerDurden
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ushakov_Mykyta Рассея, в том или ином виде, планировала этот конфликт чёрт знает сколько времени. Подозреваю, что еще с 2004 года - первой серьёзной революции.
@РомановВладимир-ю9д
2 жыл бұрын
And, what about sunk cost fallacy?
@openmind2464
2 жыл бұрын
Cant understand a word Elan is saying.
@ozowen904
2 жыл бұрын
It’s very droning and bad presentation. I also don’t understand the other guy because the accent is unfortunately too strong. It should have just been declared the disagreements and then talk about them. Rambling.
@jgalt308
2 жыл бұрын
Now you would think that "realism" and "objectivism" should be synonymous, and that any informed "objectivist" would understand that Russia's actions in Ukraine are totally justified, while the U.S. is totally responsible. Of course, an informed "objectivist" would also know that the U.S. government has been illegitimate and unconstitutional since 1939 and stuff like this is an "embarrassment" to Ayn Rand...who would have, if she were still around, may have altered her man qua man claim, to more accurately reflect "objective reality"...to reflect the advancement in empirical knowledge, since her passing.
@TeaParty1776
2 жыл бұрын
Your mystical view of Objectivism is...interesting. Look out at reality,not inward. focus your mind.
@jgalt308
2 жыл бұрын
@@TeaParty1776 That was very imaginative...but neither an argument nor does it make any sense.
@Ushakov_Mykyta
2 жыл бұрын
@@jgalt308 Perhaps you just don't understand objectivism. As implied in the video, objectivism is a moralistic philosophy at its core, realism is an anti-moral one.
@jgalt308
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ushakov_Mykyta Well that's an interesting claim and you may be right...but morality is subjective, so maybe objectivism, isn't objective...or maybe it's you that doesn't understand "objectivism"? Or maybe Rand fell a little short as suggested, for the reason suggested. The other facts stated are simply facts. The objective reality of the universe and it's laws, or the laws of nature do not indicate any evidence of morality and there is only one self-evident universal right available to all life and it is not passive. So who is being "objective"?
Пікірлер: 306