Thanks all for commentary. As usual when I do these 10-20 min monologues I forget several things I intended to say. One key point I left out is something I learned from long ago from Jeff Brown on theoildrum.com - the critical distinction between 'oil production' and 'oil exporting'. As world grows energy exporting countries increasingly use more oil/gas domestically - so the amount of oil globally available for export shrinks faster than (eventually) oil production. Russia, USA and KSA are by far 3 largest oil producers, but only Russia and KSA are oil exporters. In fact, in 2021, Russia accounted for ~22% of global oil exports and ~25% of global gas exports. From a biophysical perspective this is a very big deal. twitter.com/NJHagens/status/1594437002862239749?s=20&t=DMWHWf1nHie7_megdMfknQ
What is TRULY scary is that we have over 500 "representatives" in our Government who have barely a "whiff" of your understanding. Provincial party politics and self-advancement is the red meat of their existence. Your insight and commentary is needed more than ever. Thank you a thousand times over for all your efforts.
This is nice to hear from Nate. Especially since some guests supported, and spoken very highly of Politicians in the US that have voted for, and supported aggressive, historic levels of funding for the military, NATO expansion and the Ukrainian conflict. All while US citizens are experiencing unprecedented levels of poverty, suicide rates, crime and homelessness. Glad Nate seems skeptical of US Foreign Policy. The US military being the #1 polluter on the globe - it may - in fact - be the largest hurdle to overcome if humans are to ever reach any semblance of sustainability or homeostasis with The Environment.
What You dont get about the foreing US policy is that once the RUS war on UA would be won by russians the US citizen you allegedly care about would have even higher levels of poverty, suicide rates, crime and homelessness. And that is why it is of paramount importance and worth of absolutely every price not to allow it happen. Fortunately decidents in the USA grasp it.
@@Rafikius WRONG. I'm a combat/special forces veteran of 7 years. Family and friends are in CIA and DoD at high levels with TS clearance etc.. I also work with 2 NGOs/Think Tanks out of DC that study things like this and other Existential Risks. It's my job to understand these things. I get paid to. Nate is 100% correct. This statement of yours is just so wrong - I don't even know how to or have the time to go into how/why. Look into it some more. Please don't just form strong opinions on things you do not know, understand or are educated/have experience with. Some intellectual humility goes very far in the world. You owe this to yourself.
@@zpettigrew VERY WRONG. bro... Speaking to me using such a simple (Argumentum ad verecundiam) rethirics/eristics is out of sense. You believe you are somehow priviledged to posses a broader view which allows tou to judge cause you are an inmate. Firstly.. no one who has any position or access to secret info would put that so openly. Therefore I dare to maintain my stance. Btw. I do have.enough humility and... I base on it when it is necessary. Brw. Bear in mind that Most of the controversies occuring during Easter europeans communication with natives roots out of the fact we are used to speak flat out what we mean which you find rude. btw. Do you have enough humility to admit that the USA opinion has been so easily mabipulated by russians? And still dare to keep saying you have a sober outlook ontha war issue?😇
Dear Nate! I am in general really inspired by your viewpoints. However, I am sure you have never been to Russia or Ukraine and hence your thoughts here become a projection field not really grounded in what I would term the evil reality of Russia. When I was a tour guide in Russia, I was often horrified by the level of depersonalisation in all walks of life. Just one little example told me everything: the way Russians treat their children. Everything cannot be reduced to the level of fossilfuel. I would recomend Vlad Vexler as a source for substantial information. Kind regards 🤠🙏🏻
As usual, Nate, I find your energy/resource-centered realpolitik take on events excellent food for thought... but at the same time, I see the reports of mass graves and evidence of civilian torture in Ukraine, and I am reminded that there is more going on in world events than the -- admittedly, too often overlooked -- framing of "humanity on planet Earth" perspective you so ably articulate. Your recent interview with Art Berman also underscored that Putin holds a lot of cards in the current round of the geopolitical game, and as Russia is an energy-exporting nation, will continue to do so. I think its valuable to remind us to look at events from an energy/ecology perspective, and in that sense, challenging a nuclear power like Russia just seems reckless (Noam Chomsky seems to take this view, also).... but does that mean we don't have a better recourse than just capitulating to Russia? I suppose it gets back to, our best foreign policy plank would be energy independence, but your work shows not just how unlikely that is for the USA, but how irrelevant it is in terms of how the world works (e.g., it's not Americans who will freeze due to a lack of Russian natural gas, bur our European allies). Are we simply left with "resource determinism"? Those nations that control resources, particularly energy, will dictate terms for the rest of us?
Not necessarily. We have things they need and their people want things we have. All leaders whether democratic or autocratic have to keep their own populace happy to hold on to power. Our lot face elections; their lot can face revolution, a coup or a bullet. Also the thing about trade and why it sort of works is we get what we need and they get what they need. It's called win-win. But it needs diplomacy which involves looking out for your interests but understanding the other side have theirs which are as legitimate as ours. Something sorely lacking on all sides the way I see it.
Nate also has a very limited understanding of what happened in post-soviet countries after the collapse of USSR. If there was any looting of people that happened there, it was not done by the "harvard boys", but by the political elites. I was 12 when soviet union fell apart, not smart enough to understand how to navigate it and what the impact for the coming decades will be, but smart enough to remember what actually happened. The privatisation was an abstract idea for 99,9% of the population, people who received their privatisation vouchers traded them for blocks of cigarettes, cases of vodka, because they had no idea what the hell to do with that piece of paper. If there were anyone who really benefitted from it, it were the political elites who were in power already during the soviet times, who controlled the industries and the military and law enforcement, and they successfully privatised everything that they themselves decided was worth privatising. Nate should probably read some Bill Brouwer's books; or at least listen to him commenting on that period in Russia specifically. That may lead to further discoveries and understanding the role and goals of russia in the soviet regime, and the exploitative practices put in place by them. Lots of soul searching to do here; but I seriously doubt that he's up to that.
@@myla6135 you didn't get russia in these nearly two years. I suggest the video of Vlad Vexler on why russian regime doesn't have to worry about the popular support or possible removal from power. th-cam.com/video/K4O3D7CfThA/w-d-xo.html
Just recently i learned in one of your great simplification pot cast, that Mr. P holds a Phd in Energy Economics. Combining that fact with the seize of RU economy in bio physical terms and the energy blindness of politicians and their economic masters - this frankly pod cast is SCARRY!
We have a pretty large platform across various languages to shape how people view nations. Around 5M views a video across various languages. How could we do a better job in your view, Nate? Note - our goal is to play into stereotypes to attract an audience, then add nuance. So we can't be perfect (to maintain an audience) but am opening to hear how it can be better.
Quite right Nate. We ignore & belittle the Russian Federation at our own peril. The Russian Federation is massively rich in energy & natural resources. That we will need access to someday. If sucess to the West & Nato looks like Cold War 2.0, then something has gone horribly wrong. I grew up during Cold War 1.0, the massive financial sacrifices we made for that. Falling down schools, hospitals and social care. That can't be allowed to happen again. We must learn from our previous mistakes, Not repeat them...
People really are geopolitics blind. Not one mention of Ukrainian desires and goals in the entire video. Maybe UKRAINE wants to secure their own natural resources within their 1991 borders. Any thoughts about that? IMO fighting would still continue even if US and Europe cut support. Letting Russia walk over them for some type of unipolar world battle is not in their identity.
Russia is trying to commit genocide in Ukraine. Please listen to those who are Russia's neighbours, they have front-line view to the situation. I very much appreciate your work on energy, but this take on Russia is widely off the mark.
Hmmm ... a Banderite Nazi coup in 2014 with 14,000 Ethnic Russians killed in the Donbass. NATO expansion to Russia's borders which wouldn't be tolerated at US borders.
My take, for what it's worth because I don't have the data to back it up, is that Russia is well past peak oil and in the middle of a SURPLUS ENERGY CRISIS. The fact that it seems to have literally run out of ammo and is using Soviet era weaponry and importing crappy drones from Iran to me says something is seriously wrong in Russia. Someone else suggested a podcast with Peter Zeihan. I agree. Because you two could teach each other a few things....
There's a quote in Daniel Elsberg's book _The Doomsday Machine_ wherein he and a colleague watched Dr. Strangelove in the theater in '64(?). Both were working at RAND corp. at the time working on nuclear 'war' scenarios. They both came out of the film and said of the saterical dark comedy that it was less of a fictional comedy than it was a documentary. If you've not seen it, do. Above being a great film, it is chilling. Plus great acting, film making, cinematography, dark humor , etc.
Well said Nate! We must both tell the truth about what has developed into a proxy war and discuss the real politique of nuclear engagement and what that would do to life on earth.
Interestingly enough, your monologue misses to mention that it was Russia who attacked Ukraine. Conservative estimates puts Ukraine's civilian losses above one hundred thousand women, children and elderly. Perhaps they deserve being mentioned in your "let's save mr Putin's face" speech? And since you are so averse to Russia losing the war, perhaps in your next episode you can elaborate your view on "how will the world look like if Russia wins".
Thanks for Ur words. I wanted to write exactly the same. and started to peruse over comments. We must understand the US american outlook on the war issue via the spectacle of their phobias and biases. Fortunately those who rule the country have a wider spectrum of perceiving an issue with a tendency to obtain the bigger picture. As you know their possitive, cooperaive attitude is misused by Russians mischeviously , for whom the biggest victory is to "kinut' loha". thats why their contemporary inteligence cooperates with western slavic instances as we read/ see throu russians actions faaar bettter than any of their "highly regarded experts". Better late than never. Slava Ukrainie!
@@aristocraticrebel These are the same people who lied us into a war by showing fake photos at the UN and who subsequently killed a million Iraqis just so they could claim their oil and the same people who introduced kill quotas which ended up killing countless numbers of innocent Vietnamese people just so it would seem like the American troops were winning. Short of asking if they’ve thought it through I very much doubt even they even care about people other than themselves
In Russian history chaos has always been followed by a strong tyrant coming to power. It's why Putin is in power. Because of the chaos of the Yeltsin year and similarly after the Russian Revolution when Bolsheviks came to power.
Nate, I'm thinking I'm more of a modern day conservative, ie not progressive, and I don't know your governance views, but I know your mostly correct regarding this matter and also your broader energy/ economic coupling views...you have really opened my eyes to our consumption expansion that cannot be sustained, and it really does worry me in that I see lots of waste everyday, and believe that a very high percentage of people are blind to where we are headed as a whole world ecological entity....keep up the great work and conversion, I'm hopeful more folks with mental abilities that far exceed my own, can help us get to a more sustainable, less materialistic way of life...
As an ex conservative : the worship of and total devotion to absolute defense of HUGE PRIVATE PROPERTY and ENDLESS PROFITS by “ conservative ideology’’any real steps to protect the Earth’s ecological health are totally doomed. Without “ progressive “ real action in the past we would not have 1 acre of public land set aside or regulations to protect the air and water. I live in the CONSERVATIVE HEAVEN of Texas: 3% public land ( including all highways, streets , roads, schools, military bases and all the parks and nature preserves). 97% open for no regulation DEVELOPMENT, Urban sprawl, oil, clear cutting and we have the dirtiest beaches in US. What would it take to perhaps open your eyes to this sleazy hard reality that the modern “ conservative “ will not nor ever support doing any action ?
You would benefit from Timothy Snyder's work (Harvard historian) who is going out of his way to reveal what is at stake. Never has a nuclear power attempted genocide before. When the Germans engaged in genocide, their arsenal was not nuclear. If you refute the genocidal nature of the conflict, you are being incomplete, politically. Naive even. Perhaps out of convenience and out of your desire to return to climate discussions. No one has answers on how to resolve a genocidal conflict when the aggressor is a nuclear power.
The geopolitical planners of the US have no idea of Russian history. Every time Russia is in a crisis, as would be the case of a coup or complete collapse in war that a tyrant rises up to store order. Be it the Russian revolution ousting the Romanovs, causing chaos in the aftermath ending with the rise of Lenin and Stalin or the collapse of the USSR causing chaos under Yeltsin when the economy shrunk by half in a decade and that was resolved by bringing to power the strong man Putin. The sort of instability America wishes for Russia would only see another tyrant replace Putin with a chaotic interval.
Interesting point you made about Russia potentially coming up with a commodity-backed currency as an alternative to the dollar. We (and others) used to have that when the gold standard backed our dollar. Venezuela is trying this with its "Petro" oil-backed cryptocurrency, but I don't think that has gotten any traction. Do you think Russia / BRICS will try this? Any thoughts on how it might work or if it would?
In our history as a species we did not evolve to be broad scale thinkers, we didn't evolve to have the capacity to think of time and space because 300k years ago when homosapiens emerged, there was no need to do so. People lived short lives within limited territories in which they forged for resources. So most people today don't think in terms of broad capacity because there was no need to do so. Exactly what sustainability requires is the ability to think broadly through space and time. - Joseph Tainter
Nate, have you considered an interview with Peter Zeihan? You might benefit from his data-driven geopolitical perspective and your audience would certainly benefit from your discussion.
What does winning mean? It means continued independence for Ukraine. Does handing Ukraine over to Russia for Putin to have his way with it end the nuclear danger? I doubt it.
I like this podcast but this disregards the people under occupation in ukraine. You're arguing to give in to Nuclear blackmail, as if all will be right with the world after. You've got the big picture small picture the wrong way round here. This isnt about energy blindness, its about the small picture of human rights. Russia will continue to export when they, hopefully, lose.
Despite how much I respect you for the work you're doing on educating people on energy, this "Frankly" is uninformed. I will try to persuade you, and I hope that I will. Mostly because I am an Eastern European political science graduate with a background in Russian studies. Also because my nation has been fucked by Russia for 300 years straight, and also because I always wanted to persuade Mearsheimer anyway (and you seem like you just repeat points of people such as Mearsheimer, as you do not seem to be a specialist in the field). 1. I have yet to understand why people in the West for their pathos choose the argument some imminent nuclear threat to justify their position, as you do here. Russia will not use a nuclear weapon, as it has nothing to gain from it, and much more to lose from it. If it does use it, it will be due to Western weakness. I suppose you do that because the rest of your argument does not hold up, so you need to succumb to an argument that goes something like this: "I might be wrong, but I am simply trying to prevent nuclear armageddon!" 2. Then you try to base your following arguments on even shakier ground by bringing up "public relations". At this point, you deny any possibility for a rational and just justification for the war and its funding. You set it up as a question of public relations. You even say that it is the "MEDIA" that is doing this. You sound calm and reasonable as you say this, and yet such argument is almost on the brink of insanity. 3. You're right that any alternative to Putin would be worse. You draw the wrong conclusion, though. You seem to have absolutely no information on how hard the Russian population is brainwashed, and how the brainwashing of the Russian population is clearly instrumental (it is shaped inconsistently, ramps up after 2012 once Putin tightens his grip on power, just like Russian nationalism and state ideology is constantly shifting, constantly appealing to completely different concepts according to the needs of the object of the brainwashing). The reason any alternative to Putin would be worse is that the Russian people would support Stalin 2.0 before supporting anyone resembling a human. The overwhelming majority of Russians are either brainwashed, or demoralised. And demoralised people do not know who is right, only that "there is no truth" (which is a very popular notion among the Russian youth, much more than in the "degenerate" West the Putin always proclaims). I recommend you check out a youtube channel "1420" if you want to find out more about what Russians actually think about things. 4. As a separate point, you see unable to understand that a population that craves for war and blood can exist, much like Chamberlain in the Interwar period. Russian population is a population that wants war. In fact, sociological polls show that middle-aged women in rural Russia are the biggest supporters of the war. But you would need to turn off your inner Westerner to understand that, and actually study Russia. 5. What you are saying about "the Harvard boys" is a made-up argument by the Kremlin to depict the US as an enemy of Russia and frame it so as to show that the US wants to destroy Russia. Truth is, the West tried to help Russia as much as possible once the USSR collapsed. The West were talking about "A Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok", many believed there will be a common European market all the way to Vladivostok. There were REAL ways to destroy Russia at its lowest, but the West wanted to build it stronger, like it rebuilt Germany and Japan after WW2. The fact that the reforms failed do not deny the good will of the West. You know why? Because my own country is a massive "the Harvard Boys" development success story. Why the reforms worked wonderfully in countries like Lithuania and failed so horribly in countries like Russia is very much discussed in political economy literature. Btw no one robbed Russia, you're being lied to. Putin renationalised oil and gas to centalise, capture and therefore control the distribution of oil and gas rents in Russia. To maintain internal stability. Read Douglass North. 6. No leader since Bush "wanted a weaker Russia". Every naive American President "tried to get along with Russia". Bush did, Obama did, Trump did, Biden did. All four failed, eventually turning more anti-Russia than their predeccessors. The war in Ukraine is a story of deterrence failure. 7. That is (and goodwill of the West in the 90s) because NO ONE WANTS RUSSIA TO COLLAPSE. The collapse of Russia would be the biggest nightmare to the rest of the world. Imagine a fractured country in civil war with no one controlling the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. You said that. Why would you not add two and two together? Then perhaps you'd understand that all that the US, Germany and France have been doing these 30 years was appeasing Russia. 8. Therefore, Russia never wanted to get along with the West, not the other way around. The reason for that is Russian imperial ambition, and an even bigger imperial ambition of Putin himself. 9. If you haven't noticed, the US has been trying desperately to exit Europe for the past 10 years. It wants to pivot to Asia. It tried everything to leave things to the Europeans and leave Russia to them. The problem is that Western Europeans are even dumber than the appeaser Americans. 10. All in all, the essence of your argument is "To avoid nuclear war, let's work together with Russia by appeasing it and giving it what it wants!". Amazing strategy. I'm sure the US would give Russia Ukraine, but everyone knows that it would enable Russia to start shit in the Baltic States, Poland and Moldova, and therefore there is no point. If you think that perverse nation called Russia wants anything more than land, you're wrong. They seem to be destined for failure and decay, and so they have nothing more to do but to turn to fascism and war. They don't seem to care that their Czar robs them, but 90% of Russian history is worse, so why bother. 11. NATO poses no threat to Russia, it poses threat to Russian imperial ambitions. NATO is soon to expand to Finland, from where the city of St Petersbourg will be very close, and it is also very close from Estonia. Despite that, Russia is draining all their defensive units to Ukraine. If NATO is such a threat, why is Russia leaving Kaliningrad and its Western border unmanned? Have you ever tried posing this question? Extras: 12. Holy shit, a full house. You pull up BRICS. A non-existent alliance designed to fool wishful thinkers like you that somehow there is some very large growing momentum for global anti-US alliance. Show me a single ALLY that Russia has, then show me any tangible leverage that BRICS has - any multilateral institutions, international norms, influence over other countries (as a collective), ANYTHING. You won't, because you can't. But you're completely illiterate on the topic, as you do not even seem to realise that Russian geopolitical game lead was always conscious about making no allies around the world. Russia has partners, it won't commit to anything, it's its essence. 13. Russia is important to the world economy though an energy lense. And yet, it's a poor, underdeveloped and declining country with a fascist population. 14. Wait, NATO troops on the ground? Are you mad or are you THIS emotional and underinformed? 15. Sad that you do not even include the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as anything worth discussing. Thank your for being frank. I'm sure that you consider us, Poles, Latvians, Slovaks, Czechs, Latvians, Estonians, etc. nothing more than cattle. You think you talk for peace and "the people", yet you undermine their very own right to self-determination. I imagine you fancy yourself as someone who cares deeply a whole lot about the Palestinian issue as well, though. Despite I myself consider myself a leftist and one that is now studying unorthodox post-Keynesian economics (hello Steve Keen), your naive and dangerous positions on Russia is the reason why I hope no naive idiots like Corbyn, Waters, Varoufakis and many more never get close to any decision making in the West. You've been active measure'd by the KGB, and at least half the stuff you say the Kremlin does not even believe itself (like the BRICS shit).
I think these are strong counterpoints. I admire Nate greatly in terms of large scale ecological and systems thinking, but I don't think that makes him an expert in geopolitics. And although your arguments are a bit strident and angry, I can't write them off for that reason, since you live in an area threatened by Russia. It seems to me like they are in fact an aggressive imperialist state and will in fact subjugate their neighbors again-as they have done historically-if they are not deterred by force.
@@davidmorrisonmusic My arguments are strident and angry because the format limits my explanation. I could write 10 pages on the topic, but who would read it? Already barely fit in a page. If you wish or anyone else wishes that I elaborate further on any of these, I can do it. I can defend each point using way more evidence and less anecdote. But then again, I somewhat believe that if all brainwashed-by-Ruskie-propaganda people ever tried to answer the question "So why does Russia don't care about Finland joining NATO while leaving their entire current border with NATO unarmed?", they would wake up. Because there is only one correct answer to this question. This question either wakes a person up or allows everyone to see for who one really is. Even if a KGB'd person, after answering the question, continues to push Russian propaganda, the only way it can continue making sense is if they don't consider Eastern European countries as subjects, and only care about great power politics. From this perspective, they see that Ukraine should be given to Russia to appease it, but here Ukraine is fundamentally an object, not a subject itself. So this question is great in a sense that it either 1) wakes a person up; or 2) reveals the deep, underlying and horrible reason why the person truly justifies what he or she justifies. But then there are also exceptions like extremely dumb leftists, who unironically believe that "the Ukrainian people will prefer if we don't give them weapons because no weapons = no war". The sheer stupidity of geniuses like Varoufakis when the talk turns to geopolitics continues to astonish me.
@@Haganenno121 Mearsheimerists groan and moan about the "russia's legitimate security concerns" however how can anyone think that the russian elite has any concerns in regards of NATO's expansion? All members of russian elite have their families livining in NATO's countries, their children studying in UK and USA, all of them have real estates in Italy, France, UK and USA. Moreover, most of them have a dual citizenship, holding passports of NATO's countries, surprisingly they don't want to be citizens of N.Korea, China or Iran.
@@sergiokhrystyuk2441 Exactly. And they know that NATO would never attack Russia because there is not a single Western politician that wants internal instability in Russia.
I did not get the impression that this missile was intended. It was a stray! Russia is turning out to be a starkly weak power, when it comes to fighting a war outside its borders. The last thing they want is a conventional war with NATO, and that is why they keep on threatening nuclear weapons. They know they stink, as a conventional military power.
@@mrrecluse7002 I keep wondering why NATO. An anachronistic defence pact which is only provocative and a waste of money. America's policy of expanding NATO is imperialist hegemony.
@@coweatsman Oh, I see. You are being one track minded. Well, in any case, the U.S. has been way too imperialist, in the recent past, for me also. But in this case, Russia is not only being extremely imperialist, but also guilty of a disgusting genocide, which happens to be a standard for their brand of warfare, in general. Putin's narcissism reminds me of Trump. When he accuses people of being Nazis or fascists, he is actually projecting his own inner self.
I'd rather him to be enrolled on Secretary of Environment rooster. (as he it his Majest Nate hwo is geopolitically blind not the majority as he claims. the amajotity is just ignorant)
War has always been for slavery and negotiation, being normal takes an effort of Christmas or the examples of shared differences over food and health. Mental trauma is an education that failed to educate, and pays a man to thinking.
I have followed the war in Ukraine since 2014. Putin is the moderate voice over there. He is a lawyer and has a phd in economics. His thesis was on the Soviet Unions handling of their oil industry. Many people surrounding Putin want to totally destroy Ukraine. Nate absolutely nails it here.
I think this is NONSENSE. Putin is the ONLY voice that wanted to invade Ukraine last. February. Its own military didn't even know what it was doing when the so called "training exercises" suddenly turned in to a drive into Ukraine's muddy roads. Soldiers didn't even know. Although interestingly the US knew, so had inside knowledge, and told the world what Russia was planning for WEEKS, hoping that exposing our intelligence would break Putin's confidence. But obviously that failed. Putin bullied his own "autocrats" to concur with his assessment, so he could blame them if it went badly. What do you say when Putin wants something? You echo it! We can see Russia as a cat, seeing how easily the US backed Afghan government fell in Aug 2021, so Putin thought taking Kiev would be as simple, and problem solved. But he was wrong, Ukraine was more prepared than he expected, and all because of Crimea in 2014. Ukrainians knew Putin well enough, knew he was funding violence in western Ukraine as a dishonest pretext for invasion. And if he had just tried that perhaps he would have succeed. But seeing Afghanistan apparently make him greedy, and now he has shown himself NOT as a moderate at all, and all his stories of "nazis" NO "satanists", wow, what nonsense, but when you have control over all media, you can make up anything to justify anything, and what do the Russian people know? They made a deal with Putin "You handle the country, and we'll mind our own business." Well, now Putin is left in a pickle of alienating BOTH Ukrainian people AND his own people who are waking up and seeing their leader is a MONSTER who says he wants to RESCUE brother and sisters by bombing and killing them in mass graves. MONSTER! Putin has ambition, and "punches above his weight" as a relatively poor backwards country, ONLY saved by its production of fossil fuels, which isn't forever. Surely NO ONE wants to be in Russia, and will be in process of a new brain-drain until the next round, perhaps of "Chinese" experts come in to exploit Russia's incompetence rather than the west. But who wants to live there? Yuck!
He's the voice of reason because all he wants is to steal Ukraine's energy and subject its citizens to a rule they obviously don't want.. Holdomore - 40% of U's infrastructure is destroyed, harvest have been compromised, energy shortages and thank God there is Putin over there being moderate - F that sh!thead.
hehe.. you still look at russia from your western comfy chair and use all the calque linguistique (and the mental one). which gives you unreal image. It only seems he is the moderated one. It is his play for the naive westerners. :) and you fall for it :). (master of puppets?) (divide et impera) NO one will say a word of opinion not allowed by this little cowardy being as there is only one penalty for such deed. (only Patrushev has been allowed certain level of sovereign opinion but it is only because he has the same way of thinking so discrepancies in their opinions are negligible )
It occured to me that nuclear annihilation may in fact be the only way we survive longterm. Sounds crazy, huh? I suspect it is, but the elimination of 96% of the population of human beings in the northern hemisphere would also end almost all of our emissions and plunge us into a nuclear winter that would cool the earth substantially for years. Those small populations that survive in the southern hemisphere would make it thru the bottleneck with a fair degree of genetic diversity with very little genome damage. Chernobyl gave us a picture of the capacity of the natural world to remain vital even after severe exposure. Perhaps after 100s of years the northern hemisphere could be repopulated and grain production could occur at scale once more. If the southern hemisphere populations remain deinduatrialized and develop a new ecologically centered economy based on barter and cooperatives then perhaps the human race might have a long term future. Does it still sound completely crazy?
And once grain could be grown again in the northern hemisphere we could start the whole cycle again. Doesn't sound crazy to me. The only crazy part is the idea that the survivors would learn anything from it & do things differently.
@@davidmorrisonmusic Yup...that's an excellent point. A typical reading of western history tells you the most popular human endeavors seem to be war, profit, and sex in that order.
I hold the minority opinion that Putin acted decisively in Ukraine. Had he waited until NATO moved missile sites to the Eastern border of Ukraine as what were NATO's intentions, it would have been too late to do anything about it. You mentioned the legions of bankers and speculators that looted Russia in the 90's.. but there are the grandparent's generation that lost 26 million for the 1941 German invasion. There isn't a family in Russia that did lose loved ones... Had Putin not responded to the provocations funded by the US, I have no doubt that Putin would have been removed. Mr Hagens, I share your opinion that this is the most dangerous war in history, but I view this as the US trying to maintain unilateral control of the world from the position of a declining power. Gotterdammerung...
The real threat of nuclear war is governmental. Only 3 of the 5 UN Security Council members are remotely democratic. The remaining 2 are autocratic in the Dictator for Life model. We (the other 3) are now engaged engaged in the kind of Proxy War that happens when an aging nuclear armed autocrat decides to check off his retrohistory bucket list. This time, it appears like he Did Not Even Consult His Own Military! I expect we had better get used to this type of event. The power signaling of MAD does work. Both in the natural world and the human civilization extension of it. But not by Appeasement......All game theory evidence from the Serengeti to the Somme show this.
Bucket list? Appeasement? ... You've been watching too much MSM brother. You realize our "Democratic" country has slaughtered literally millions of people in the last few decades. Weird how fast we forget 22 years in Afghanistan, a country that never attacked us. Or how our economic sanctions in the Middle East and Africa starved a million children. Or our continued military alliance with Shia Dictators in the Saudi royal family murdering endless people in Yemen, one of the worlds poorest country with our weapons and intelligence officers. Is it Russia's 900 military bases around the world deposing leaders, murdering with no accountability?? 🤔
Oh shut the **** up! You people have had 9 months of hand-wringing anyone who says anything other than "Slava Ukraini!", and it's getting incredibly old. If you can't handle normal adults like Nate using their brains like normal adults, than don't listen, and don't comment. If you need simple "good guy/bad guy" stories, go watch a Marvel movie.
@@svarog63 I have posted an elaborate comment as an Eastern European with some bg in Russian studies, go check it out if you're frankly interested into knowing how bad this take is.
@Hugh Campbell What he says is, that let's not agitate Russia as it's murdering it's neighbours because they have nukes. My perspective is different as I live about 45 km birds flight distance from Russian boarder
Thanks all for commentary. As usual when I do these 10-20 min monologues I forget several things I intended to say. One key point I left out is something I learned from long ago from Jeff Brown on theoildrum.com - the critical distinction between 'oil production' and 'oil exporting'. As world grows energy exporting countries increasingly use more oil/gas domestically - so the amount of oil globally available for export shrinks faster than (eventually) oil production. Russia, USA and KSA are by far 3 largest oil producers, but only Russia and KSA are oil exporters. In fact, in 2021, Russia accounted for ~22% of global oil exports and ~25% of global gas exports. From a biophysical perspective this is a very big deal. twitter.com/NJHagens/status/1594437002862239749?s=20&t=DMWHWf1nHie7_megdMfknQ
@@Charles_Raymond www.linkedin.com/posts/nate-hagens-004810b_there-are-many-countries-who-produce-extract-activity-7000442526402822144-rapX?
What is TRULY scary is that we have over 500 "representatives" in our Government who have barely a "whiff" of your understanding. Provincial party politics and self-advancement is the red meat of their existence. Your insight and commentary is needed more than ever. Thank you a thousand times over for all your efforts.
This is nice to hear from Nate. Especially since some guests supported, and spoken very highly of Politicians in the US that have voted for, and supported aggressive, historic levels of funding for the military, NATO expansion and the Ukrainian conflict. All while US citizens are experiencing unprecedented levels of poverty, suicide rates, crime and homelessness. Glad Nate seems skeptical of US Foreign Policy. The US military being the #1 polluter on the globe - it may - in fact - be the largest hurdle to overcome if humans are to ever reach any semblance of sustainability or homeostasis with The Environment.
What You dont get about the foreing US policy is that once the RUS war on UA would be won by russians the US citizen you allegedly care about would have even higher levels of poverty, suicide rates, crime and homelessness.
And that is why it is of paramount importance and worth of absolutely every price not to allow it happen.
Fortunately decidents in the USA grasp it.
@@Rafikius WRONG. I'm a combat/special forces veteran of 7 years. Family and friends are in CIA and DoD at high levels with TS clearance etc.. I also work with 2 NGOs/Think Tanks out of DC that study things like this and other Existential Risks. It's my job to understand these things. I get paid to. Nate is 100% correct. This statement of yours is just so wrong - I don't even know how to or have the time to go into how/why. Look into it some more. Please don't just form strong opinions on things you do not know, understand or are educated/have experience with. Some intellectual humility goes very far in the world. You owe this to yourself.
@@zpettigrew VERY WRONG. bro... Speaking to me using such a simple (Argumentum ad verecundiam) rethirics/eristics is out of sense.
You believe you are somehow priviledged to posses a broader view which allows tou to judge cause you are an inmate.
Firstly.. no one who has any position or access to secret info would put that so openly.
Therefore I dare to maintain my stance.
Btw. I do have.enough humility and... I base on it when it is necessary.
Brw. Bear in mind that Most of the controversies occuring during Easter europeans communication with natives roots out of the fact we are used to speak flat out what we mean which you find rude.
btw. Do you have enough humility to admit that the USA opinion has been so easily mabipulated by russians? And still dare to keep saying you have a sober outlook ontha war issue?😇
Dear Nate! I am in general really inspired by your viewpoints. However, I am sure you have never been to Russia or Ukraine and hence your thoughts here become a projection field not really grounded in what I would term the evil reality of Russia. When I was a tour guide in Russia, I was often horrified by the level of depersonalisation in all walks of life. Just one little example told me everything: the way Russians treat their children. Everything cannot be reduced to the level of fossilfuel. I would recomend Vlad Vexler as a source for substantial information. Kind regards 🤠🙏🏻
I wholeheartedly agree, regarding your recommendation of Vlad Vexler.
As usual, Nate, I find your energy/resource-centered realpolitik take on events excellent food for thought... but at the same time, I see the reports of mass graves and evidence of civilian torture in Ukraine, and I am reminded that there is more going on in world events than the -- admittedly, too often overlooked -- framing of "humanity on planet Earth" perspective you so ably articulate.
Your recent interview with Art Berman also underscored that Putin holds a lot of cards in the current round of the geopolitical game, and as Russia is an energy-exporting nation, will continue to do so. I think its valuable to remind us to look at events from an energy/ecology perspective, and in that sense, challenging a nuclear power like Russia just seems reckless (Noam Chomsky seems to take this view, also).... but does that mean we don't have a better recourse than just capitulating to Russia?
I suppose it gets back to, our best foreign policy plank would be energy independence, but your work shows not just how unlikely that is for the USA, but how irrelevant it is in terms of how the world works (e.g., it's not Americans who will freeze due to a lack of Russian natural gas, bur our European allies).
Are we simply left with "resource determinism"? Those nations that control resources, particularly energy, will dictate terms for the rest of us?
Not necessarily. We have things they need and their people want things we have. All leaders whether democratic or autocratic have to keep their own populace happy to hold on to power. Our lot face elections; their lot can face revolution, a coup or a bullet.
Also the thing about trade and why it sort of works is we get what we need and they get what they need. It's called win-win. But it needs diplomacy which involves looking out for your interests but understanding the other side have theirs which are as legitimate as ours. Something sorely lacking on all sides the way I see it.
Nate also has a very limited understanding of what happened in post-soviet countries after the collapse of USSR. If there was any looting of people that happened there, it was not done by the "harvard boys", but by the political elites. I was 12 when soviet union fell apart, not smart enough to understand how to navigate it and what the impact for the coming decades will be, but smart enough to remember what actually happened. The privatisation was an abstract idea for 99,9% of the population, people who received their privatisation vouchers traded them for blocks of cigarettes, cases of vodka, because they had no idea what the hell to do with that piece of paper. If there were anyone who really benefitted from it, it were the political elites who were in power already during the soviet times, who controlled the industries and the military and law enforcement, and they successfully privatised everything that they themselves decided was worth privatising. Nate should probably read some Bill Brouwer's books; or at least listen to him commenting on that period in Russia specifically. That may lead to further discoveries and understanding the role and goals of russia in the soviet regime, and the exploitative practices put in place by them. Lots of soul searching to do here; but I seriously doubt that he's up to that.
@@myla6135 you didn't get russia in these nearly two years. I suggest the video of Vlad Vexler on why russian regime doesn't have to worry about the popular support or possible removal from power. th-cam.com/video/K4O3D7CfThA/w-d-xo.html
Just recently i learned in one of your great simplification pot cast, that Mr. P holds a Phd in Energy Economics. Combining that fact with the seize of RU economy in bio physical terms and the energy blindness of politicians and their economic masters - this frankly pod cast is SCARRY!
Welcome to the red pill
We have a pretty large platform across various languages to shape how people view nations. Around 5M views a video across various languages. How could we do a better job in your view, Nate?
Note - our goal is to play into stereotypes to attract an audience, then add nuance. So we can't be perfect (to maintain an audience) but am opening to hear how it can be better.
Quite right Nate. We ignore & belittle the Russian Federation at our own peril. The Russian Federation is massively rich in energy & natural resources. That we will need access to someday. If sucess to the West & Nato looks like Cold War 2.0, then something has gone horribly wrong. I grew up during Cold War 1.0, the massive financial sacrifices we made for that. Falling down schools, hospitals and social care. That can't be allowed to happen again. We must learn from our previous mistakes, Not repeat them...
Just discovered your TH-cam channel Mate and am loving it man! Thank you and keep up the good work!
Thanks for sharing Nate
Best channel I’ve found yet!!!
these are all good points....gets us all thinking......your videos should have more viewers
People really are geopolitics blind. Not one mention of Ukrainian desires and goals in the entire video. Maybe UKRAINE wants to secure their own natural resources within their 1991 borders. Any thoughts about that? IMO fighting would still continue even if US and Europe cut support. Letting Russia walk over them for some type of unipolar world battle is not in their identity.
Russia is trying to commit genocide in Ukraine. Please listen to those who are Russia's neighbours, they have front-line view to the situation. I very much appreciate your work on energy, but this take on Russia is widely off the mark.
Hmmm ... a Banderite Nazi coup in 2014 with 14,000 Ethnic Russians killed in the Donbass. NATO expansion to Russia's borders which wouldn't be tolerated at US borders.
Thank you sooooo much! If you say , what you brought out here, in Germany, you may face big problems, though it is so obvious.....😔
I consider the US a greater threat, there are a lot of people in power that consider a first strike as a realistic option to deal with Russia.
My take, for what it's worth because I don't have the data to back it up, is that Russia is well past peak oil and in the middle of a SURPLUS ENERGY CRISIS. The fact that it seems to have literally run out of ammo and is using Soviet era weaponry and importing crappy drones from Iran to me says something is seriously wrong in Russia.
Someone else suggested a podcast with Peter Zeihan. I agree. Because you two could teach each other a few things....
There's a quote in Daniel Elsberg's book _The Doomsday Machine_ wherein he and a colleague watched Dr. Strangelove in the theater in '64(?). Both were working at RAND corp. at the time working on nuclear 'war' scenarios.
They both came out of the film and said of the saterical dark comedy that it was less of a fictional comedy than it was a documentary.
If you've not seen it, do.
Above being a great film, it is chilling.
Plus great acting, film making, cinematography, dark humor , etc.
Well said Nate! We must both tell the truth about what has developed into a proxy war and discuss the real politique of nuclear engagement and what that would do to life on earth.
Excellent round up of where we are now, glad I found your channel.
Interestingly enough, your monologue misses to mention that it was Russia who attacked Ukraine. Conservative estimates puts Ukraine's civilian losses above one hundred thousand women, children and elderly. Perhaps they deserve being mentioned in your "let's save mr Putin's face" speech? And since you are so averse to Russia losing the war, perhaps in your next episode you can elaborate your view on "how will the world look like if Russia wins".
Thanks for Ur words.
I wanted to write exactly the same. and started to peruse over comments.
We must understand the US american outlook on the war issue via the spectacle of their phobias and biases.
Fortunately those who rule the country have a wider spectrum of perceiving an issue with a tendency to obtain the bigger picture.
As you know their possitive, cooperaive attitude is misused by Russians mischeviously , for whom the biggest victory is to "kinut' loha".
thats why their contemporary inteligence cooperates with western slavic instances as we read/ see throu russians actions faaar bettter than any of their "highly regarded experts".
Better late than never.
Slava Ukrainie!
Wish most world leaders had your level of emotional maturity.
Being a citizen of Europe, I'm not sure I really want to know exactly how things will pan out if Russia suddenly disintegrates!
Exactly. What happens to their nukes? Do these neocons even think about that?
@@aristocraticrebel These are the same people who lied us into a war by showing fake photos at the UN and who subsequently killed a million Iraqis just so they could claim their oil and the same people who introduced kill quotas which ended up killing countless numbers of innocent Vietnamese people just so it would seem like the American troops were winning. Short of asking if they’ve thought it through I very much doubt even they even care about people other than themselves
In Russian history chaos has always been followed by a strong tyrant coming to power. It's why Putin is in power. Because of the chaos of the Yeltsin year and similarly after the Russian Revolution when Bolsheviks came to power.
Ha, if I were you, I'd be worried about Europe.
@@coweatsman Who are the candidates waiting in the wings to take over from Vladimir?
Nate, I'm thinking I'm more of a modern day conservative, ie not progressive, and I don't know your governance views, but I know your mostly correct regarding this matter and also your broader energy/ economic coupling views...you have really opened my eyes to our consumption expansion that cannot be sustained, and it really does worry me in that I see lots of waste everyday, and believe that a very high percentage of people are blind to where we are headed as a whole world ecological entity....keep up the great work and conversion, I'm hopeful more folks with mental abilities that far exceed my own, can help us get to a more sustainable, less materialistic way of life...
As an ex conservative : the worship of and total devotion to absolute defense of HUGE PRIVATE PROPERTY and ENDLESS PROFITS by “ conservative ideology’’any real steps to protect the Earth’s ecological health are totally doomed. Without “ progressive “ real action in the past we would not have 1 acre of public land set aside or regulations to protect the air and water.
I live in the CONSERVATIVE HEAVEN of Texas: 3% public land ( including all highways, streets , roads, schools, military bases and all the parks and nature preserves). 97% open for no regulation DEVELOPMENT, Urban sprawl, oil, clear cutting and we have the dirtiest beaches in US. What would it take to perhaps open your eyes to this sleazy hard reality that the modern “ conservative “
will not nor ever support doing any action ?
You would benefit from Timothy Snyder's work (Harvard historian) who is going out of his way to reveal what is at stake. Never has a nuclear power attempted genocide before. When the Germans engaged in genocide, their arsenal was not nuclear. If you refute the genocidal nature of the conflict, you are being incomplete, politically. Naive even. Perhaps out of convenience and out of your desire to return to climate discussions. No one has answers on how to resolve a genocidal conflict when the aggressor is a nuclear power.
The geopolitical planners of the US have no idea of Russian history. Every time Russia is in a crisis, as would be the case of a coup or complete collapse in war that a tyrant rises up to store order. Be it the Russian revolution ousting the Romanovs, causing chaos in the aftermath ending with the rise of Lenin and Stalin or the collapse of the USSR causing chaos under Yeltsin when the economy shrunk by half in a decade and that was resolved by bringing to power the strong man Putin. The sort of instability America wishes for Russia would only see another tyrant replace Putin with a chaotic interval.
Interesting point you made about Russia potentially coming up with a commodity-backed currency as an alternative to the dollar. We (and others) used to have that when the gold standard backed our dollar. Venezuela is trying this with its "Petro" oil-backed cryptocurrency, but I don't think that has gotten any traction. Do you think Russia / BRICS will try this? Any thoughts on how it might work or if it would?
A resource based currency is our only hope and even then not much hope.
In our history as a species we did not evolve to be broad scale thinkers, we didn't evolve to have the capacity to think of time and space because 300k years ago when homosapiens emerged, there was no need to do so. People lived short lives within limited territories in which they forged for resources. So most people today don't think in terms of broad capacity because there was no need to do so. Exactly what sustainability requires is the ability to think broadly through space and time. - Joseph Tainter
Nate, have you considered an interview with Peter Zeihan? You might benefit from his data-driven geopolitical perspective and your audience would certainly benefit from your discussion.
Adding my support for an interview with Peter Zeihan, he's been my go-to source for geopolitics. Lots of overlap with what Nate talks about.
What does winning mean? It means continued independence for Ukraine. Does handing Ukraine over to Russia for Putin to have his way with it end the nuclear danger? I doubt it.
Nate your fabulous dude!
Intro music update good too!
I like this podcast but this disregards the people under occupation in ukraine. You're arguing to give in to Nuclear blackmail, as if all will be right with the world after. You've got the big picture small picture the wrong way round here. This isnt about energy blindness, its about the small picture of human rights. Russia will continue to export when they, hopefully, lose.
Despite how much I respect you for the work you're doing on educating people on energy, this "Frankly" is uninformed. I will try to persuade you, and I hope that I will. Mostly because I am an Eastern European political science graduate with a background in Russian studies. Also because my nation has been fucked by Russia for 300 years straight, and also because I always wanted to persuade Mearsheimer anyway (and you seem like you just repeat points of people such as Mearsheimer, as you do not seem to be a specialist in the field).
1. I have yet to understand why people in the West for their pathos choose the argument some imminent nuclear threat to justify their position, as you do here. Russia will not use a nuclear weapon, as it has nothing to gain from it, and much more to lose from it. If it does use it, it will be due to Western weakness. I suppose you do that because the rest of your argument does not hold up, so you need to succumb to an argument that goes something like this: "I might be wrong, but I am simply trying to prevent nuclear armageddon!"
2. Then you try to base your following arguments on even shakier ground by bringing up "public relations". At this point, you deny any possibility for a rational and just justification for the war and its funding. You set it up as a question of public relations. You even say that it is the "MEDIA" that is doing this. You sound calm and reasonable as you say this, and yet such argument is almost on the brink of insanity.
3. You're right that any alternative to Putin would be worse. You draw the wrong conclusion, though. You seem to have absolutely no information on how hard the Russian population is brainwashed, and how the brainwashing of the Russian population is clearly instrumental (it is shaped inconsistently, ramps up after 2012 once Putin tightens his grip on power, just like Russian nationalism and state ideology is constantly shifting, constantly appealing to completely different concepts according to the needs of the object of the brainwashing). The reason any alternative to Putin would be worse is that the Russian people would support Stalin 2.0 before supporting anyone resembling a human. The overwhelming majority of Russians are either brainwashed, or demoralised. And demoralised people do not know who is right, only that "there is no truth" (which is a very popular notion among the Russian youth, much more than in the "degenerate" West the Putin always proclaims). I recommend you check out a youtube channel "1420" if you want to find out more about what Russians actually think about things.
4. As a separate point, you see unable to understand that a population that craves for war and blood can exist, much like Chamberlain in the Interwar period. Russian population is a population that wants war. In fact, sociological polls show that middle-aged women in rural Russia are the biggest supporters of the war. But you would need to turn off your inner Westerner to understand that, and actually study Russia.
5. What you are saying about "the Harvard boys" is a made-up argument by the Kremlin to depict the US as an enemy of Russia and frame it so as to show that the US wants to destroy Russia. Truth is, the West tried to help Russia as much as possible once the USSR collapsed. The West were talking about "A Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok", many believed there will be a common European market all the way to Vladivostok. There were REAL ways to destroy Russia at its lowest, but the West wanted to build it stronger, like it rebuilt Germany and Japan after WW2. The fact that the reforms failed do not deny the good will of the West. You know why? Because my own country is a massive "the Harvard Boys" development success story. Why the reforms worked wonderfully in countries like Lithuania and failed so horribly in countries like Russia is very much discussed in political economy literature. Btw no one robbed Russia, you're being lied to. Putin renationalised oil and gas to centalise, capture and therefore control the distribution of oil and gas rents in Russia. To maintain internal stability. Read Douglass North.
6. No leader since Bush "wanted a weaker Russia". Every naive American President "tried to get along with Russia". Bush did, Obama did, Trump did, Biden did. All four failed, eventually turning more anti-Russia than their predeccessors. The war in Ukraine is a story of deterrence failure.
7. That is (and goodwill of the West in the 90s) because NO ONE WANTS RUSSIA TO COLLAPSE. The collapse of Russia would be the biggest nightmare to the rest of the world. Imagine a fractured country in civil war with no one controlling the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. You said that. Why would you not add two and two together? Then perhaps you'd understand that all that the US, Germany and France have been doing these 30 years was appeasing Russia.
8. Therefore, Russia never wanted to get along with the West, not the other way around. The reason for that is Russian imperial ambition, and an even bigger imperial ambition of Putin himself.
9. If you haven't noticed, the US has been trying desperately to exit Europe for the past 10 years. It wants to pivot to Asia. It tried everything to leave things to the Europeans and leave Russia to them. The problem is that Western Europeans are even dumber than the appeaser Americans.
10. All in all, the essence of your argument is "To avoid nuclear war, let's work together with Russia by appeasing it and giving it what it wants!". Amazing strategy. I'm sure the US would give Russia Ukraine, but everyone knows that it would enable Russia to start shit in the Baltic States, Poland and Moldova, and therefore there is no point. If you think that perverse nation called Russia wants anything more than land, you're wrong. They seem to be destined for failure and decay, and so they have nothing more to do but to turn to fascism and war. They don't seem to care that their Czar robs them, but 90% of Russian history is worse, so why bother.
11. NATO poses no threat to Russia, it poses threat to Russian imperial ambitions. NATO is soon to expand to Finland, from where the city of St Petersbourg will be very close, and it is also very close from Estonia. Despite that, Russia is draining all their defensive units to Ukraine. If NATO is such a threat, why is Russia leaving Kaliningrad and its Western border unmanned? Have you ever tried posing this question?
Extras:
12. Holy shit, a full house. You pull up BRICS. A non-existent alliance designed to fool wishful thinkers like you that somehow there is some very large growing momentum for global anti-US alliance. Show me a single ALLY that Russia has, then show me any tangible leverage that BRICS has - any multilateral institutions, international norms, influence over other countries (as a collective), ANYTHING. You won't, because you can't. But you're completely illiterate on the topic, as you do not even seem to realise that Russian geopolitical game lead was always conscious about making no allies around the world. Russia has partners, it won't commit to anything, it's its essence.
13. Russia is important to the world economy though an energy lense. And yet, it's a poor, underdeveloped and declining country with a fascist population.
14. Wait, NATO troops on the ground? Are you mad or are you THIS emotional and underinformed?
15. Sad that you do not even include the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as anything worth discussing. Thank your for being frank. I'm sure that you consider us, Poles, Latvians, Slovaks, Czechs, Latvians, Estonians, etc. nothing more than cattle. You think you talk for peace and "the people", yet you undermine their very own right to self-determination. I imagine you fancy yourself as someone who cares deeply a whole lot about the Palestinian issue as well, though.
Despite I myself consider myself a leftist and one that is now studying unorthodox post-Keynesian economics (hello Steve Keen), your naive and dangerous positions on Russia is the reason why I hope no naive idiots like Corbyn, Waters, Varoufakis and many more never get close to any decision making in the West. You've been active measure'd by the KGB, and at least half the stuff you say the Kremlin does not even believe itself (like the BRICS shit).
Entropy
I think these are strong counterpoints. I admire Nate greatly in terms of large scale ecological and systems thinking, but I don't think that makes him an expert in geopolitics. And although your arguments are a bit strident and angry, I can't write them off for that reason, since you live in an area threatened by Russia. It seems to me like they are in fact an aggressive imperialist state and will in fact subjugate their neighbors again-as they have done historically-if they are not deterred by force.
@@davidmorrisonmusic My arguments are strident and angry because the format limits my explanation. I could write 10 pages on the topic, but who would read it? Already barely fit in a page. If you wish or anyone else wishes that I elaborate further on any of these, I can do it. I can defend each point using way more evidence and less anecdote.
But then again, I somewhat believe that if all brainwashed-by-Ruskie-propaganda people ever tried to answer the question "So why does Russia don't care about Finland joining NATO while leaving their entire current border with NATO unarmed?", they would wake up. Because there is only one correct answer to this question. This question either wakes a person up or allows everyone to see for who one really is. Even if a KGB'd person, after answering the question, continues to push Russian propaganda, the only way it can continue making sense is if they don't consider Eastern European countries as subjects, and only care about great power politics. From this perspective, they see that Ukraine should be given to Russia to appease it, but here Ukraine is fundamentally an object, not a subject itself.
So this question is great in a sense that it either 1) wakes a person up; or 2) reveals the deep, underlying and horrible reason why the person truly justifies what he or she justifies.
But then there are also exceptions like extremely dumb leftists, who unironically believe that "the Ukrainian people will prefer if we don't give them weapons because no weapons = no war". The sheer stupidity of geniuses like Varoufakis when the talk turns to geopolitics continues to astonish me.
@@Haganenno121 Mearsheimerists groan and moan about the "russia's legitimate security concerns" however how can anyone think that the russian elite has any concerns in regards of NATO's expansion? All members of russian elite have their families livining in NATO's countries, their children studying in UK and USA, all of them have real estates in Italy, France, UK and USA. Moreover, most of them have a dual citizenship, holding passports of NATO's countries, surprisingly they don't want to be citizens of N.Korea, China or Iran.
@@sergiokhrystyuk2441 Exactly. And they know that NATO would never attack Russia because there is not a single Western politician that wants internal instability in Russia.
RE: Ukrainian missile landing in Poland. A nanometre away from WWIII. A solution to Fermi's Paradox?
I did not get the impression that this missile was intended. It was a stray! Russia is turning out to be a starkly weak power, when it comes to fighting a war outside its borders. The last thing they want is a conventional war with NATO, and that is why they keep on threatening nuclear weapons. They know they stink, as a conventional military power.
@@mrrecluse7002 I keep wondering why NATO. An anachronistic defence pact which is only provocative and a waste of money. America's policy of expanding NATO is imperialist hegemony.
@@coweatsman Oh, I see. You are being one track minded. Well, in any case, the U.S. has been way too imperialist, in the recent past, for me also.
But in this case, Russia is not only being extremely imperialist, but also guilty of a disgusting genocide, which happens to be a standard for their brand of warfare, in general.
Putin's narcissism reminds me of Trump. When he accuses people of being Nazis or fascists, he is actually projecting his own inner self.
Very scary stuff, frankly. Thanks Dr. Nate!
Thanks for the brain food Nate.
I wish you were our Secretary of State.
Nate left Wall Street much too early for that to happen
I'd rather him to be enrolled on Secretary of Environment rooster. (as he it his Majest Nate hwo is geopolitically blind not the majority as he claims. the amajotity is just ignorant)
@@zeamaiz945 I did not know Secretary of State operates at Wall street :-)
@@Rafikius considering the interests they represent, they might as well be
War has always been for slavery and negotiation, being normal takes an effort of Christmas or the examples of shared differences over food and health. Mental trauma is an education that failed to educate, and pays a man to thinking.
I have followed the war in Ukraine since 2014. Putin is the moderate voice over there. He is a lawyer and has a phd in economics. His thesis was on the Soviet Unions handling of their oil industry. Many people surrounding Putin want to totally destroy Ukraine. Nate absolutely nails it here.
I think this is NONSENSE. Putin is the ONLY voice that wanted to invade Ukraine last. February. Its own military didn't even know what it was doing when the so called "training exercises" suddenly turned in to a drive into Ukraine's muddy roads. Soldiers didn't even know. Although interestingly the US knew, so had inside knowledge, and told the world what Russia was planning for WEEKS, hoping that exposing our intelligence would break Putin's confidence. But obviously that failed. Putin bullied his own "autocrats" to concur with his assessment, so he could blame them if it went badly. What do you say when Putin wants something? You echo it!
We can see Russia as a cat, seeing how easily the US backed Afghan government fell in Aug 2021, so Putin thought taking Kiev would be as simple, and problem solved. But he was wrong, Ukraine was more prepared than he expected, and all because of Crimea in 2014. Ukrainians knew Putin well enough, knew he was funding violence in western Ukraine as a dishonest pretext for invasion. And if he had just tried that perhaps he would have succeed.
But seeing Afghanistan apparently make him greedy, and now he has shown himself NOT as a moderate at all, and all his stories of "nazis" NO "satanists", wow, what nonsense, but when you have control over all media, you can make up anything to justify anything, and what do the Russian people know? They made a deal with Putin "You handle the country, and we'll mind our own business." Well, now Putin is left in a pickle of alienating BOTH Ukrainian people AND his own people who are waking up and seeing their leader is a MONSTER who says he wants to RESCUE brother and sisters by bombing and killing them in mass graves. MONSTER!
Putin has ambition, and "punches above his weight" as a relatively poor backwards country, ONLY saved by its production of fossil fuels, which isn't forever. Surely NO ONE wants to be in Russia, and will be in process of a new brain-drain until the next round, perhaps of "Chinese" experts come in to exploit Russia's incompetence rather than the west. But who wants to live there? Yuck!
He's the voice of reason because all he wants is to steal Ukraine's energy and subject its citizens to a rule they obviously don't want..
Holdomore - 40% of U's infrastructure is destroyed, harvest have been compromised, energy shortages and thank God there is Putin over there being moderate - F that sh!thead.
hehe.. you still look at russia from your western comfy chair and use all the calque linguistique (and the mental one). which gives you unreal image.
It only seems he is the moderated one. It is his play for the naive westerners. :) and you fall for it :). (master of puppets?) (divide et impera)
NO one will say a word of opinion not allowed by this little cowardy being as there is only one penalty for such deed.
(only Patrushev has been allowed certain level of sovereign opinion but it is only because he has the same way of thinking so discrepancies in their opinions are negligible )
It occured to me that nuclear annihilation may in fact be the only way we survive longterm. Sounds crazy, huh? I suspect it is, but the elimination of 96% of the population of human beings in the northern hemisphere would also end almost all of our emissions and plunge us into a nuclear winter that would cool the earth substantially for years. Those small populations that survive in the southern hemisphere would make it thru the bottleneck with a fair degree of genetic diversity with very little genome damage. Chernobyl gave us a picture of the capacity of the natural world to remain vital even after severe exposure. Perhaps after 100s of years the northern hemisphere could be repopulated and grain production could occur at scale once more. If the southern hemisphere populations remain deinduatrialized and develop a new ecologically centered economy based on barter and cooperatives then perhaps the human race might have a long term future. Does it still sound completely crazy?
And once grain could be grown again in the northern hemisphere we could start the whole cycle again. Doesn't sound crazy to me. The only crazy part is the idea that the survivors would learn anything from it & do things differently.
@@davidmorrisonmusic Yup...that's an excellent point. A typical reading of western history tells you the most popular human endeavors seem to be war, profit, and sex in that order.
So the bully always wins...?
The answer is: only when they pick on the weakest… just look at the U.S. behavior for proof
I hold the minority opinion that Putin acted decisively in Ukraine. Had he waited until NATO moved missile sites to the Eastern border of Ukraine as what were NATO's intentions, it would have been too late to do anything about it.
You mentioned the legions of bankers and speculators that looted Russia in the 90's..
but there are the grandparent's generation that lost 26 million for the 1941 German invasion.
There isn't a family in Russia that did lose loved ones...
Had Putin not responded to the provocations funded by the US, I have no doubt that Putin would have been removed. Mr Hagens, I share your opinion that this is the most dangerous war in history, but I view this as the US trying to maintain unilateral control of the world from the position of a declining power. Gotterdammerung...
The real threat of nuclear war is governmental.
Only 3 of the 5 UN Security Council members are remotely democratic.
The remaining 2 are autocratic in the Dictator for Life model.
We (the other 3) are now engaged engaged in the kind of Proxy War that happens when an aging nuclear armed autocrat decides to check off his retrohistory bucket list.
This time, it appears like he Did Not Even Consult His Own Military!
I expect we had better get used to this type of event.
The power signaling of MAD does work. Both in the natural world and the human civilization extension of it.
But not by Appeasement......All game theory evidence from the Serengeti to the Somme show this.
no, that's not why or how these (your) proxy-wars "happen".
biting my tongue to not comment on the rest of your disoriented take.
Bucket list? Appeasement? ... You've been watching too much MSM brother. You realize our "Democratic" country has slaughtered literally millions of people in the last few decades. Weird how fast we forget 22 years in Afghanistan, a country that never attacked us. Or how our economic sanctions in the Middle East and Africa starved a million children. Or our continued military alliance with Shia Dictators in the Saudi royal family murdering endless people in Yemen, one of the worlds poorest country with our weapons and intelligence officers. Is it Russia's 900 military bases around the world deposing leaders, murdering with no accountability?? 🤔
You are smart guy but in this case you have fallen for russian propaganda.
Oh shut the **** up! You people have had 9 months of hand-wringing anyone who says anything other than "Slava Ukraini!", and it's getting incredibly old.
If you can't handle normal adults like Nate using their brains like normal adults, than don't listen, and don't comment. If you need simple "good guy/bad guy" stories, go watch a Marvel movie.
Can you please elaborate because I haven't heard any "Russian propaganda". The guy said himself: "I don't like Putin".
How possible is it you've fallen under another kind of propaganda?
@@svarog63 I have posted an elaborate comment as an Eastern European with some bg in Russian studies, go check it out if you're frankly interested into knowing how bad this take is.
@Hugh Campbell What he says is, that let's not agitate Russia as it's murdering it's neighbours because they have nukes. My perspective is different as I live about 45 km birds flight distance from Russian boarder