With the world on fire, it is refreshing to see people thinking through the issues and looking at the bigger picture. If only more of our leaders could be like this. We need more Alex and less Lavrov.
Another phenomenal piece, Alex. As a practitioner, I always find your insights extremely inspirational. Looking forward to the next installment in the series! 💪
Hi Alex. I am just a normal, very normal citizen. But I am from one of the best democracy in the world: Uruguay. Since 2010 I am living in Chile so I cant avoid to compare both country and society. One thing that I think I learned is free market is good for the economy, because make possible people have access to jobs, but there are some areas, and that depend each society, that the state should intervening and regulated in order to create a better social environment is possible. I think also, in a world where values are very lax, we should value more Democracy and this should be something that leaders should pay attention. And the only way to do this is through the public education. Thanks for your lectures I really enjoy it. And sorry if my English is not the best, but I learned it after my 30s. Abrazo
Abrazo, you are correct about public education. The countries that recover better from wars, global economic & political conflics are those that have the culture of higher education and social discipline.
So graciously excited to read Alex’ book, well informed individual on global issues with an educated stance and equal view. (Thank you for posting these, and thank you to the algorithm for making this possible.)
Alex, I will be buying the book most certainly and I hope it is available soon as I am eager for it. I like the way you break it down as it makes it more understandable. I saw that you are standing for the presidency, you would have my vote if I was a citizen and could do so. Much appreciation.
Thanks, Alex! I have been following you since I first read your column in Finnair magazine. I saw you once on a Helsinki-Tallinn plane when you were Foreign Minister of Finland. I appreciate your Nordic-like calm and in-depth analysis of current events and your insights into the future.
Wow... Great introduction.... I'm looking forward to future chapters..... Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hope this series can stimulate discussions to help humanity work towards the common good.
@@kkpenney444 Well that may be true, but it's not his choice he's foreign minister, and you could see when he was telling some pundit that Hitler was a Jew, that his heart really wasn't in it.
@@kkpenney444 There's a very good interview with Steve Rosenberg. It might help you to gather some information on Lavrov, and then to present your opinions in a more interesting way.
Great. I love watching your videos. I hope the book will be available as an audiobook as I do a lot of driving and never have time to read physical books Thanks Alex, wise words and thought provoking as usual 🙏
I’m a student of government, and currently pursuing a graduate degree. I have listened to the educational lectures you published here. I’m enlightened by them. How can I get a copy of your book in the United States??
Alex, I envisage a multipolar world emerging, one in which each continental block is a pole of varying import. Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Eurasia, the continent of Africa & possibly the Mediterranean Basin being some of the poles, with some 'poles' overlapping. I see this multipolar world essentially cooperating, with discussions concerning commonly held values building on respect & trust. I am by nature an optimist & see this as our only hope for a future as a species on this marvellous spaceship that we call Earth. Excuse me for being unclear in how I express my thoughts. Thank-you for the stimulating lectures.
Dear Alex, thank you for these excelent highlights of global world competition as we speak. I am not, however, as optimistic as you are. I rather would say that these convulsions are only the begining of the end of post cold war era. What we experinced now are the first steps of much general conflict yet to come between global west (as you name it) and global east. And it comes in difficult times, when western societies are ripped apart by ideological intern fights and debates, the Trump case being only the tip of the iceberg.
Omg as a Southerner I really enjoyed the accent you attempted when saying the name of the university 😂 i imagine it's close to how i sound when attempting to temper my southern accent while practicing eastern european languages 😆 Love this new series and definitely will be reading the book
Thank you, Alex... and I always look forward to your new videos! Perhaps you cover it later, but I hope you'll also devote some time to the emerging new _Economic_ Order. IMHO there is a tendency in the West to equate Free Market Capitalism with Democracy, but as we see in the New World (Dis)Order, these new competitors with the West often have very different _'uses'_ for Capitalism and the 'Free Market'!
🇺🇲 Going all the back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, I remember drills in elementary school in which we hid beneath our desks in defense of a Russian atomic bomb attack. Then, while working in the middle of a large military complex for over thirty years, I thought of Russian bombs overhead many times. A lifetime of imaging physical harm by Russia is long enough. I hope to live to see this issue resolved to some degree.
Hi Alex, IMO what differentiates the global West (us) from the global East is that we the citizens have the same way of thinking as our governments...in comparison to China and Russia most of the citizens do not approve of what their respectful government is doing but at the same time won't talk about it because it is an autocracy and they could risk being jailed.
Alex, I love your videos - it is rare to have such a direct and articulate view from someone who has been there. I am curious why you group the “Global South” as one block when there are so many different cultures and governmental structures. It is like people saying BRICS is a unified entity when India and China are opposed to many issues and Russia historically has been wary of China (now their short term interests are aligned though), and Brazil. The “West” and “East” made sense due to the Cold War setting clearer boundaries with US/NATO and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, but I don’t fully understand how the Global South works in the same way.
Really wonderful start! Another critically important conceptual dimension is sovereignty. That begins at the person level, then extends to the family, local community, state, country, continent, etc., Every constriction of free will at any level by a person or group that does not consider the value of every person's free will and ability to contribute to common free will is a lapse of sovereignty. One could argue that lapses of sovereignty are ultimately unsustainable and essentially evil since they disrupt the natural evolution and development of all free beings.
I think Agile World Order would be a useful outcome 😁 That doesn't mean it would better than what we had or have, just more adaptive to current world events, both political and natural, so as to mitigate the worst outcomes and promote the best.
Alex, it would be also awesome to see the role of the Global West in contributing to the decline of the World of Order. While being pro-western myself and fully agreeing on the role of non-western countries in contributing to the decline of the Word of Order, I think there were mistakes in the Global West as well, that led to where we are now. I can think of Kosovo and Taiwan here or the US invasion to Iraq. I don't think either of these things are in line with the world based on rules and hence if the Global West tries to maintain the power of rules but not always follow it themselves, then I can see why non-western countries can be led by this bad example. Like, I can agree that Russia gives a bad example that it's okay to solve your goals with military means. But it does apply to the US as well. We need to have an honest view on this. To add a bit more to the context: Kosovo was internationally recognised as part of Serbia; Taiwan is still internationally recognised as part of mainland China. However, the western countries don't try to put any effort in defending the Serbian or Chinese claim to these lands. Yes, there is concerns regarding human rights, but it doesn't mean that internationally recognised borders should be changed because of that. Either commit to the rules fully or don't get surprised when others don't
The western politicians want the whole world to live by the values that they have determined. And it's particularly funny that western countries are so appaled now by any violation of human rights, but these very countries had been violating these very same rights up until very recently: different toilets for white and black people, persecutions of communists, limitations for women and etc etc.
I don’t know much about Kosovo, but my memory is that the Kosovo inhabitants were being oppressed by the Serbs and therefore deserved/needed independence. The problem is that there are now Serbs who are being oppressed by the Kosovians. The China problem is equally complex. Taiwan is now a vibrant democracy, but originally it was as dictatorial as China is now. Is it worth defending? I don’t know. But if I do know that if Taiwan falls to China, it will not stop there. Japan, Korea and the Southeast Asian countries will be threatened，and even Australia
Thanks Alex, I appreciate your efforts in promoting thought before actions and dialog before confrontation. Having worked a significant part of my career in the global south, where I had the opportunity to worked with many different peoples and cultures, I am disappointed with the direction the world is moving. I am not a supporter of the term “World Order” or “New World Order” as these tend to imply that this is fixed and won't change when it needs to evolve and mature over time. I think the classification of the Industrial Revolutions may provide some structure for World Orders, look back, identify significant periods and name and number them (maybe this has already been done?). I agree that Russia's recent actions (Georgia, Ukraine. ...) will be seen as a pivotal point between the current World Order (x.0?) and the next World Order (y.0?) ... the challenge will be, can we make the next World Order an improvement of the past one. Again, thanks for sharing your insights and knowledge.
As a concerned American, it is nice to hear European voices on the state of global politics and conflicts. I hope you will consider the role of the UN,(in your book) in the emergence of the new global power structure. The European global power countries, pre-WWII and the Global power players created within the UN’s umbrella. The UK, France, Russia, China, U.S.. It seems those alliances determined where we are now. The U.S., it’s wealth and military and protection of many countries also determined the global power players. Lenin’s quote , ‘There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen’, probably ignores the fact that 75 years of powerful countries working together at shaping a new world order, were happening on a daily basis… but it was/is behind the curtains for the ordinary populations. I look forward to reading your book, you do have an extensive experience and knowledge in international affairs, and good luck on your upcoming election.
Interesting videos as always. However would suggest a correction about Britain being the first global power. Portugal was the first (and last) modern global empire 1415 to 1974/76: India, Brasil, Africa, Asia (e.g., Ilha Formosa (Taiwan), Macau) and of course, Portugal itself. It was the first European power to reach Japan, playing a decisive role for its unification, via introduction of firearms. Britain was the most successful modern European empire. Not the first and not the last.
At 17:19 Dr Stubb says that the West should not allow Russia to "create spheres of interest" while "sacrificing the sovereignty of its neighbors". I very much agree. But is the West not doing the same for decadas with a much richer track record than Russia? Is the US invasion of Iraq not a creation of a sphere of interest at the expense of the sovereignty of another nation? Does anyone else see a double standard in this?
When can we buy your book? Please also deal with the great over-indebtedness of states and private individuals and the problem of fiat money! If society breaks down because of this, there will no longer be any difference between the West on the one hand and Russia and China etc. on the other.
🇺🇲 Baby Boomer here. Today's events are forming the most historical period of my lifetime. After a generation of relative stability, we enter into a new chaotic century and its multitude of challenges.
1 agree that were likely in for some big impact decisions. But were not at 1918, rather 1914(or 15? 13? Depends on what happens) 2 very vague (and honestly a bit of an overlong book title) unsure that grouping the countries together that much really is helpful. Individual countries will act in their own interest, and while there might be some aligment between similar countries, i dont see how broad groups of countries are a better analytical level than nations, alliances, institutions, etc. 3 also pretty vague. This doesnt go into any specifics, and will be "true" pretty much no matter what happens, which is great for a soothsayer but not actually useful. Maybe you go into more detail in the book, but it would be more interesting if you gave your thoughts on how the next world order might look like
What's going to happen next is a robot war as a prelude to a potential nuclear war, however it doesn't have to happen that way. It might not happen that way, however that seems to be the path technology is going to take us.
Two things which will contribute heavily to the coming world order, in my opinion, will be population changes due to decreased birth rates and the shuffling of priorities brought on by the physical and financial costs of climate change on various world populations. I am aware of the importance of Japan as an American ally but how severely will climate change alter that country’s power structure as islands shrink due to water levels altering coastlines as well as the severely aging population/low birth rate that nation faces?
So, Mr. Stubb decides to text Mr. Lavrov to put an end to this madness...he has friends in high places ! Sadly, if Alexander S. does not know what to think and what to do about the new world order then we are in for a very rough ride IMO.
As a finn. When he says if we could done otherwise? YES We could done that but our balls was to small and Obama have no balls at all. In the end we should blame Obama most
As someone from the global south, specifically South Africa, I think our perspective is greatly underrepresented in the global discord. What has been happening here is unprecedented co-operation, particularly in sub-saharan Africa. The unraveling conflict between East and West is providing us with the opportunity to break the chains of the modern global economy that enslaves us by exploiting the natural resources of Africa. The continent is going into an invisible revolution where nations are poised for a shift in prosperity. The war in Ukraine is a catalyst, the tough economic climate in Africa has incubated resilience and we will likely see African institutions flourish as the east and west burn eachother's resources. The global south will refuse to be a proxy war zone playground as it was during the cold war.
I am hoping that Alex will take a more balanced approach in his book. He seems to neglect the role that America played when it deemed itself the sole uni-polar power in the world. The invasion of Iraq in 1991 by the USA was the start of the uni-polar power structure with the US believing that they can invade at will or overthrow governments when it deemed necessary for a rule based order. The bombing of Serbia in the late 90s by the USA was another sign of uni-polar strength. Of course there were various American interference in the internal affairs of many countries in the global south, ie in Africa and in Latin America before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. And should we forget the USA's war with Libya which many Libyans refer to as Nato's war and the destruction that it caused in that country? Rule based order gone amuck.
There is an assumption that there ever was a stable world order. The cold war was a war largely by other than military means, and was very disruptive of political order. Post-Soviet and pre-9/11 saw all the grounds laid for a rogue and criminal Russian state. And post-9/11 was a 20-year war against non-state actors, which continues. There has been no genuinely stable peace. The plunge into our current state of affairs can be placed squarely on the shoulders of an irrational reactionary authoritarian movement exemplified by Trump, which now seems to be on the decline. It's odd to be predicting chaos when the authoritarian authors of chaos are clearly not prevailing.
While drinking a relaxed latte in cafes around government offices, you tend to underestimate the bastard who wants to steal your watch. What is important is not how the three moons revolve, but whether we want to influence our own trajectory. The title should be: "We have learned nothing and we do not want to learn anything."
One of the things I was thinking about is the issue of the Global East - namely lead by China and Russia, vs the Global West. One thing strikes me is the Global East- namely China (and Russia) are lead by autocratic (Perhaps dictatorial is too strong a word) regimes, lead by the strength of personality (Xi, Putin). We know from history such regimes tend to actually be very unstable, even if they can be long running. Once the personality is gone, things start to become unstable. Western democracies, tend to have institutions that tend to be very stable - although they can be undermined. The US and the UK have extraordinary strong institutions - even if they are being tested by Trump or people like Boris Johnson. The recent events in Poland shows that illiberal populism can be held in check and reversed. So I am skeptical of the longevity of the Global East - although I can see more long term instability - especially because of Climate change resulting in accelerated mass migration - and this is the biggest threat to global stability because it may turn out to be disruptive.
You have monarchy rule in Europe which is not a democracy Two party' system in USA almost close to one party system like China and Russia If it is a battle between autocracy vs democracy , I would suggest European union and USA must end trade with autocracies You institutions are designed to loot and dictate the terms to other countries but you are not following the rules. 7 billion people lives in Asia, Africa and Latin America they are not there to keep your Monarchy rich People are educating, information is today widely available.. The economic growth doesn't come from China or Russia but they are strong players Don't live in old order world mindset better start live in realistic World
The concept of global south, east and west feels rather amorphous. I may be old fashioned in thinking that perhaps a more complicated but perhaps more salient approach would be along ethno-religious lines. Putin's thoughts that Ukrainians are really simply Russians and Xi's China insisting that ethnic Chinese must somehow be brought into the fold with Taiwan and the Pan-Arab influence seems to be a more fruitful approach perhaps? Not forgetting Modi and the Hindu revivalism.
Here's another theme: God helps those who help themselves. If we contrast the worlds response to Afghanistan vs. Ukraine, the main difference was that in the absence of US boots on the ground, Ukraine fought to maintain its independence, and Liberty, Afghanistan, didn't. That's an oversimplification, I'm sure, but more or less true. One of the lessons the US has learned (or should have learned) during the last 100 years is that westernizing through occupation doesn't work. More accurately westerizing by external force doesn't work. When the US occupied Japan, it was already on a journey to westernization. In fact, the creation of the pre-WW2 Japanese empire was a Japanese effort to apply lessons learned from Western Colonial powers and an effort to emulate them. So westernizing Japan was "easy" because it already wanted to westernize. On the other hand, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all failures because there was resistance to westernization. Perhaps another theme might be "Those who live in the past are doomed to repeat it." Iran, Turkey, China, and Russia (Perhaps India as well) all see themselves as resurgent empires. They are trying to rekindle past glory or are leaning heavily on historical "greatness" to justify expansionist policies or the right to dominate their neighbors. The US is not immune to this either. What was once simply a way to maintain national pride and unity in pursuit of "economic expansionism" has now devolved into an identity crisis that insists that the US must maintain itself as the the once and future king. ( Europe, until recently, was happy to go along with this idea) To summarize, we're living in an era where the past has come back to haunt us. Both the sins of the past, as well as the pursuit of past glories. The liberal West is naiivly idealist in trying to move into a future where might does not make right. Most of the rest of the world seems content with living at least in the 18th and 19th centuries, if not further back in time.
Sure blame afghans for US mistake, US catered to a bunch of warlords who were selling drung to have some obedient servants there. And they stoled all the aid send by the west, alienating the population. At day a government clerk built a bridge with US money, at night his brother from Taliban's blew it up, and Americans payed for a new bridge. And second is about culture, few afghans were exposed to western culture to know what they have lost with Taliban's. Also Afghanistan was very decentralized for centuries, there was only tribal loyalty no concept of citizenship. The US backed government tried to centralize the power, but local tribes were reluctant to fight for this new corrupt government. So when government fell they didn't hurry to defend it.
Not blaming the Afghans, I'm talking about the worlds reaction/perception. Because the Afghan fighting spirit collapsed so quickly, the world didn't come to the Afghan's rescue, as it did for Ukraine. If Russia's 3 day war had been successful the result would have been the same. But this is missing the point. The point is unless you have a strong desire to join the modern world and to adopt "Western" Values, these can not be forced upon you by external parties. At least not within one generation! It would take many generations of "education" and experiencing Western Values to transform a resistant population! Keep in mind that the US occupied Afghanistan for 20 years! There were over 2000 US troop deaths in Afghanistan (20,000+ Wounded) Which is a big deal to Americans! The US spent over $2 Trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan. ($2,000,000,000,000! or about 10% of annual US GDP) The West simply couldn't afford to commit to re-educating the entire population of Afghanistan for many generations in the hopes that it could result in a western friendly nation. Yes it was a US mistake to believe that nation-building by occupation was possible! This is why I contrasted it with Japan. If the West relies on the post WW2 Japanese experience, they will be deriving the wrong lesson, because Japan was already trying to "Westernize" before the war started. I classify any attempts at Nation building as Colonial Arrogance. The idea being that your culture is so superior that no people would hesitate to adopt it once they experience it,. Even if they have to experience it through occupation! I will give Afghanistan credit. No nation in history has been able to conquer them! They're stubborn. I'll give them that.
Great talk, as always. It makes sense that you reference Fukuyama's 'end of history,' as you have an optimistic lean. I would, however, be very careful HOW you reference this questionable book. The big attention It received was more infamy than fame. No serious thinkers believed he was correct. Besides his thesis obviously being empirically wrong in hindsight, his narrow, American view of the world was apparent. Though naive, his optimism wasn't the problem. It's his teleological, history-has-an-ending, view that was always philosophically wrong. It's the same wrongness as Marx thinking communism was a utopian endpoint where humanity would find homeostasis. Asking where history 'ends' is a bad question. It assumes a structure that does not fit sociopolitical evolution or human nature. These objections, and others, were raised since the book's publication.
The question is, Is the world any more disordered than it was before? Perhaps not. It's a constant testing of levels of power, including interventions in places where one side judges the other to not be openly committed to direct counter-action, so they largely fly under the radar or are only mildly opposed. I mean I can count the West's interventions in Panama, Granada, Lebanon, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya since 1990. Russia basically Chechnya, to assert sovereignty over contiguous territory, in Georgia; and Ukraine, basically in response to NATO attempts at membership and claims of sphere of influence; and China in extending control over Tibet for similar reasons. In other words, pretty much both sides tend to intervene particularly in places where there is an expectation that the other side won't offer outright support and chances of winning appear high. Clearly both Iraq and Ukraine represent bad risk assessments. What the great peer competitors all want to avoid are direct confrontations. Those aren't good. But otherwise the world seems as disordered as ever.
NATO did not attempt to claim Ukraine, neither it had intentions to make it a member. If you went back to 2008, the West collectively postponed this question, relying on Russian peaceful intentions. If it happened as you described (with NATO intention to include Ukraine as its member, Ukraine would not suffer Russian aggression in the first place). In case you are referring to 2013-2014, it happened to much Western surprise. Moreover, later on, Ukraine was receiving quite negative signals from NATO and EU. So the key element of your argument is already faulty.
With all due respect that you deserve, and considering the request to provide suggestions in this space, I would like to comment on a fundamental variable in the analysis that is likely present in the book but is not mentioned. On one hand, it is not very clear if the three power blocks are monolithic; both in the West and the East, there are evident fissures not only in form but also in content. Despite the similarities in the political units of NATO, since 1945, a competition between Central Europe and the United States has persistently emerged. As Kissinger and Brzezinski warned, Europe will continue seeking greater independence from the polarity exercised by the United States. The same applies to China and Russia, not to mention the Global South, so fragmented and asymmetric that, unable to ensure its territorial security, it will struggle to establish forms of cooperation and consistency on the international stage. Now, this lack of cohesion among the three power blocks you mention also stems from non-state transformations of power, such as religions. For example, Islam in Europe will be decisive in the next decade, implying conflicts with the 'Western block,' which, up to now, has remained Christian, particularly in North America. The same holds for Russia and China; to what extent can they reproduce homogeneous spaces among the power blocs when interactions are so different? How can Sharia Law align with the Rule of Law? This also changes the conclave of the Nation-State (I understand that the book may not intend to be overly academic, but it is crucial to recognize that, based on all these changes in power, the territorial power matrix is going to shift). How will we organize ourselves as a society? Will we adopt old imperial references and mix them with city-states? While there is a tendency to demonize the Western-style empire, in the history of Eastern empires, there are different spatial configurations, and this may also be entering political-administrative innovation in the 21st century. All of this, of course, highlights that states are not capable of ensuring global services without the ability to cooperate (though I understand that the concept of power diffusion by Nye will likely be addressed in the book). Thank u very much for providing this space of knowledge, and I will be waiting to purchase the book as soon as it comes out.
I'm looking forward to buying the book, Alex. As to your statement about the significance of this decade - the 2020s - this may seem frivolous to mention, but astrologers have stated that this decade will be highly disruptive and literally world-changing. I think we're all seeing this, whether it's due to astrology or not. 😅 Good to see you posting videos again.
"Could the west have done something different? Not really(...)" I have to disagree. The west should have been more hawkish after the 2008 summit when the Russian opposition to Ukraine's and Georgia's pro-western ambitions started being gradually clearer and more vocal. The worse alternative was not promising those two countries the NATO membership. Unfortunately, the west chose the third, worst path- antagonising Russia without providing Ukraine and Georgia effective protection. It was a failure of strategic imagination on the western leaders' part.
It's a very clever remark. I think about Bucharest often when I hear about Western responsibility and wonder if aggression had been prevented if Germany and France said yes to membership of Ukraine and Georgia. However, the last two paths are equal in their outcomes. Antagonizing, in fact, was not fully committed until 2022, when the last hope shattered. I would argue that not antagonizing enough was the key mistake.
IDK I see that its a nicety to wrap a future history in a package and be alright with the bow made before the contents are (I believe this maybe only because the author is sitting in a "winners" chair, since its they who write history). Its just that to pinpoint a timeline that is "almost" predictable is fool hearty. Also WTH with just generalizing (and embiggening) a commie quote. Ill watch more, thanks.
Feels to me this book is written for 2022, not 2023. All he can talk about is the Soviet Union, Russia, Ukraine, and cold war. look at the Gaza vote at the UN vs the Ukraine vote. This book has no predictive value. It is out of date, out of gate. The book is more about imagining European problems as world problems. The 3 thesis has no substance.The first two thesis has been said before. Kishore Mahbubani has long said the geopolitical contest between US and China will be decided by the other 6 billion people. Let give credit to where it is due. Thesis 3 is obvious. Unfortunately Alex could not give us a clear idea of the new order.
I am surprised that your analysis does not look at the concept of justice. It is central to understand the worldview of the East and the South. The US represents 5% of the world's population. Why should it make the rules for everyone else to follow ? Where is the justice in that ? Where is the democracy in that ? ( at the world level, US hegemony can be seen as an authoritarian use of power ). I respect your experience but you do seem to cary a heavy western centric worldview. I say this without animosity, maybe a tad of disappointment, such a western centric approach makes it impossible to understand Lavrov's point of view, and such a western centric approach is precisely part of the problem.
West is making the rules because it was successful. That's why all countries use western calendar. Do you think that good old dictatorship should have same the weight as a democracy ? Because if you give to Putin the same power as Biden's you do this.
I have to disagree about your thesis around 14 mins on the era after 1945 of "relative peace"; the US was engaged in one conflict after another - Korean War, Vietnam War, the never ending conflict in the Middle East, the Falklands War, the breakup of Yugoslavia, Soviet and then US entry in Afghanistan, Iraq and the large number of Islamic jihads across the middle east and Africa. The ONLY thing that didn't happen was a major land war in Europe (other than Yugoslavia's breakup).
Why does the global east Want To be different? Why do different nations have these different views & ideals about things that to westerners seam only logical and rational to the success of humanity?
we can turn this around - why does the global west want to be different? Why do they have different views about things that easterners find rational? We are all children of our upbringings, and have a hard time breaking the mold. (I'm a westerner too and so can't really answer the question)
@@RobBCactive Both you and Laura speak truth here. After posting my question I started trying to figure out the answer myself. Middle & Working class citizens don’t usually question their country’s leadership or global position. They just follow the law and exist. As long as they have Work, income, food and a roof over their heads, they are content. Humans will exist and survive in many different forms of Cultism no matter how good or bad they are. Generally only a minority will come to realise that from outside of their environment, not everything is as it seems. 🤔
@@Aussie-Mocha as Alex said the global east is Russia & China, they are both autocrats who want to assert power their own people and other countries without the restraint of International law. We've all seen rogue populist politicians who disregard laws, engage in corruption and have run incompetent governments. Vladolf's friend Berlusconi for example. Japan's modernist democracy fell to militarist sentiment with a radicalised population who sought to build an empire in China and the E. Pacific. There's an interesting documentary on that history by Kraut I think. There's been plenty of rogue dictators/monarchs in European history so I think it's a mistake to believe Alex's western ideals naturally prevail due to western vs eastern characteristics. Power corrupts.
I hope you arrogantly texted Netanyahu as quickly as you texted Lavrov. Russia had to defend its national security and people and begged the West and Ukraine to come to their senses. You all laughed at their security concerns for two decades. You aren’t laughing now.
Correction..2017..in 4 yrs..the Boss's is not normally early..last year month 4 it..1948..plus longers generation 79 yrs is 2027..after that a 7 yrss of destruction..those left behind...onlen sssuuoommaallainen..hiiide from my hhhhatters
Thanks for yr work research....I think rrrapppture in sep 2014..a verbal..ticket will get U in..watch..nicles cage movie..Leaf behind...Jjjuummaallann, siunausssttta kaikkessaa..
I would also like if you also go into the cause of this russia ukraine conflict. 1991 collapse did not end history, it merely paused it till Russia stands up again. . There will never be ever lasting peace in europe. It had never been in last 2000 years and thats because there are different power centers existing within this region.
The world is not a historical continuity. Start thinking, not about geopolitics, but about geochronology. Different geological countries are at different times - Russian behaviour is quite normal for the middle ages. They have'nt progressed to the 21 st century yet. Imagine that you are a settler or a conquistador arriving in the americas discovering a society living in the stone age. How strange you would find the people. They were able to just kill off and dominate the local population. Different countries are living, culturaly, in different times, and, just like tectonic plates, where different times clash and contact one another, there are upheavals. Think about it.
Russia and China want new world order as you say. Autocracy in stead of democracy. The West stands for democracy. What is your evaluation on the real will by parts of the Western world like in Hungary, would they like the autocracy new world order or existing world order? On what side is Trump? Does the new world order have strong followers in the West? Stronger than we think?
With the world on fire, it is refreshing to see people thinking through the issues and looking at the bigger picture. If only more of our leaders could be like this. We need more Alex and less Lavrov.
Another phenomenal piece, Alex. As a practitioner, I always find your insights extremely inspirational. Looking forward to the next installment in the series! 💪
Hi Alex. I am just a normal, very normal citizen. But I am from one of the best democracy in the world: Uruguay. Since 2010 I am living in Chile so I cant avoid to compare both country and society. One thing that I think I learned is free market is good for the economy, because make possible people have access to jobs, but there are some areas, and that depend each society, that the state should intervening and regulated in order to create a better social environment is possible. I think also, in a world where values are very lax, we should value more Democracy and this should be something that leaders should pay attention. And the only way to do this is through the public education. Thanks for your lectures I really enjoy it. And sorry if my English is not the best, but I learned it after my 30s. Abrazo
Good comment.
Indeed, an excellent comment with sensible observations. Respect.
Thanks!@@rainbow2710
Thanks!@@andyreznick
Abrazo, you are correct about public education. The countries that recover better from wars, global economic & political conflics are those that have the culture of higher education and social discipline.
So graciously excited to read Alex’ book, well informed individual on global issues with an educated stance and equal view.
(Thank you for posting these, and thank you to the algorithm for making this possible.)
Alex, I will be buying the book most certainly and I hope it is available soon as I am eager for it. I like the way you break it down as it makes it more understandable.
I saw that you are standing for the presidency, you would have my vote if I was a citizen and could do so. Much appreciation.
I'd you want to be brainwashed, go ahead and get his book.
Thanks, Alex! I have been following you since I first read your column in Finnair magazine. I saw you once on a Helsinki-Tallinn plane when you were Foreign Minister of Finland. I appreciate your Nordic-like calm and in-depth analysis of current events and your insights into the future.
Your starting point is simply impeccable.
Great introduction, now we need the book!!!!!!
Wow... Great introduction.... I'm looking forward to future chapters.....
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hope this series can stimulate discussions to help humanity work towards the common good.
🤍Thanks for spending the time to create and share your perspectives 🙏🏾💙
I'd love to hear some more Lavrov anecdotes. He seems like a nice guy and his English is excellent.
Say what? He's a sociopath.
@@kkpenney444 Well that may be true, but it's not his choice he's foreign minister, and you could see when he was telling some pundit that Hitler was a Jew, that his heart really wasn't in it.
@@ClementGreen Oh, good grief.
@@kkpenney444 There's a very good interview with Steve Rosenberg. It might help you to gather some information on Lavrov, and then to present your opinions in a more interesting way.
How can you say he is a "nice guy" if he fully supports the attack on Ukraine?...It's like saying Ribbentrop was a nice guy...
Great. I love watching your videos.
I hope the book will be available as an audiobook as I do a lot of driving and never have time to read physical books
Thanks Alex, wise words and thought provoking as usual 🙏
Your words are music to mine ears.
Thank you!
I’m a student of government, and currently pursuing a graduate degree. I have listened to the educational lectures you published here. I’m enlightened by them. How can I get a copy of your book in the United States??
Thank you. I enjoy listening to your analyses and I like the anekdotes very much. Looking forward to the next episode!
Great presentation.
Alex, I envisage a multipolar world emerging, one in which each continental block is a pole of varying import.
Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Eurasia, the continent of Africa & possibly the Mediterranean Basin being some of the poles, with some 'poles' overlapping.
I see this multipolar world essentially cooperating, with discussions concerning commonly held values building on respect & trust.
I am by nature an optimist & see this as our only hope for a future as a species on this marvellous spaceship that we call Earth.
Excuse me for being unclear in how I express my thoughts.
Thank-you for the stimulating lectures.
Dear Alex, thank you for these excelent highlights of global world competition as we speak. I am not, however, as optimistic as you are. I rather would say that these convulsions are only the begining of the end of post cold war era. What we experinced now are the first steps of much general conflict yet to come between global west (as you name it) and global east. And it comes in difficult times, when western societies are ripped apart by ideological intern fights and debates, the Trump case being only the tip of the iceberg.
I’m always left wanting more, looking forward to the book.
Omg as a Southerner I really enjoyed the accent you attempted when saying the name of the university 😂 i imagine it's close to how i sound when attempting to temper my southern accent while practicing eastern european languages 😆
Love this new series and definitely will be reading the book
Food for thought. Interested in future talks.
Thank you, Alex... and I always look forward to your new videos! Perhaps you cover it later, but I hope you'll also devote some time to the emerging new _Economic_ Order. IMHO there is a tendency in the West to equate Free Market Capitalism with Democracy, but as we see in the New World (Dis)Order, these new competitors with the West often have very different _'uses'_ for Capitalism and the 'Free Market'!
Great content!
Great analysis.
🇺🇲 Going all the back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, I remember drills in elementary school in which we hid beneath our desks in defense of a Russian atomic bomb attack. Then, while working in the middle of a large military complex for over thirty years, I thought of Russian bombs overhead many times. A lifetime of imaging physical harm by Russia is long enough. I hope to live to see this issue resolved to some degree.
Awesome lecture !
Where can I purchase this book? I'd like to read it (in English) - I live in Finland.
Me, too! Looking forward to a link for a preorder
"Help Lavrov. You're my only hope."
Hi Alex, IMO what differentiates the global West (us) from the global East is that we the citizens have the same way of thinking as our governments...in comparison to China and Russia most of the citizens do not approve of what their respectful government is doing but at the same time won't talk about it because it is an autocracy and they could risk being jailed.
You have not elaborated it yet, but on first hearing, regionalization of power has some ring to spheres of power influence.
"Our holiday from history is over". Chillin words.
Alex, I love your videos - it is rare to have such a direct and articulate view from someone who has been there.
I am curious why you group the “Global South” as one block when there are so many different cultures and governmental structures. It is like people saying BRICS is a unified entity when India and China are opposed to many issues and Russia historically has been wary of China (now their short term interests are aligned though), and Brazil. The “West” and “East” made sense due to the Cold War setting clearer boundaries with US/NATO and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, but I don’t fully understand how the Global South works in the same way.
Really wonderful start! Another critically important conceptual dimension is sovereignty. That begins at the person level, then extends to the family, local community, state, country, continent, etc., Every constriction of free will at any level by a person or group that does not consider the value of every person's free will and ability to contribute to common free will is a lapse of sovereignty. One could argue that lapses of sovereignty are ultimately unsustainable and essentially evil since they disrupt the natural evolution and development of all free beings.
Can the audiobook be sold to Storytel or Audible?
Amazing book
Sori siitä.
I just want to say, that in YT description this is episode 2, but on thumbnail it is number 1.
Excellent! But then I didn’t expect anything else from you.
New era name suggestion: "What's in it for me new era"
The photo title of this video has EP. 1 but the title is EP. 2!
"Not-Two Is Peace" By Adi Da Samraj is the answer to competition, conflict, and cooperation.
I think Agile World Order would be a useful outcome 😁 That doesn't mean it would better than what we had or have, just more adaptive to current world events, both political and natural, so as to mitigate the worst outcomes and promote the best.
Are you reading your whole book to us Mr Stubb ? This is gonna be good, much appreciated!!! :)
We have a president to respect
Alex, it would be also awesome to see the role of the Global West in contributing to the decline of the World of Order. While being pro-western myself and fully agreeing on the role of non-western countries in contributing to the decline of the Word of Order, I think there were mistakes in the Global West as well, that led to where we are now. I can think of Kosovo and Taiwan here or the US invasion to Iraq. I don't think either of these things are in line with the world based on rules and hence if the Global West tries to maintain the power of rules but not always follow it themselves, then I can see why non-western countries can be led by this bad example. Like, I can agree that Russia gives a bad example that it's okay to solve your goals with military means. But it does apply to the US as well. We need to have an honest view on this.
To add a bit more to the context: Kosovo was internationally recognised as part of Serbia; Taiwan is still internationally recognised as part of mainland China. However, the western countries don't try to put any effort in defending the Serbian or Chinese claim to these lands. Yes, there is concerns regarding human rights, but it doesn't mean that internationally recognised borders should be changed because of that. Either commit to the rules fully or don't get surprised when others don't
“My wife is cheating on me… why is it my fault?” The time for self reflection is well over
The western politicians want the whole world to live by the values that they have determined. And it's particularly funny that western countries are so appaled now by any violation of human rights, but these very countries had been violating these very same rights up until very recently: different toilets for white and black people, persecutions of communists, limitations for women and etc etc.
I don’t know much about Kosovo, but my memory is that the Kosovo inhabitants were being oppressed by the Serbs and therefore deserved/needed independence. The problem is that there are now Serbs who are being oppressed by the Kosovians. The China problem is equally complex. Taiwan is now a vibrant democracy, but originally it was as dictatorial as China is now. Is it worth defending? I don’t know. But if I do know that if Taiwan falls to China, it will not stop there. Japan, Korea and the Southeast Asian countries will be threatened，and even Australia
@@malin5468 It's not that I disagree, it's just that I don't think both of these cases actually follow the international rules
Thanks Alex, I appreciate your efforts in promoting thought before actions and dialog before confrontation. Having worked a significant part of my career in the global south, where I had the opportunity to worked with many different peoples and cultures, I am disappointed with the direction the world is moving.
I am not a supporter of the term “World Order” or “New World Order” as these tend to imply that this is fixed and won't change when it needs to evolve and mature over time. I think the classification of the Industrial Revolutions may provide some structure for World Orders, look back, identify significant periods and name and number them (maybe this has already been done?). I agree that Russia's recent actions (Georgia, Ukraine. ...) will be seen as a pivotal point between the current World Order (x.0?) and the next World Order (y.0?) ... the challenge will be, can we make the next World Order an improvement of the past one.
Again, thanks for sharing your insights and knowledge.
As a concerned American, it is nice to hear European voices on the state of global politics and conflicts. I hope you will consider the role of the UN,(in your book) in the emergence of the new global power structure. The European global power countries, pre-WWII and the Global power players created within the UN’s umbrella. The UK, France, Russia, China, U.S.. It seems those alliances determined where we are now. The U.S., it’s wealth and military and protection of many countries also determined the global power players. Lenin’s quote , ‘There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen’, probably ignores the fact that 75 years of powerful countries working together at shaping a new world order, were happening on a daily basis… but it was/is behind the curtains for the ordinary populations.
I look forward to reading your book, you do have an extensive experience and knowledge in international affairs, and good luck on your upcoming election.
have you investigated the causality of feb 24 2022?
Interesting videos as always. However would suggest a correction about Britain being the first global power. Portugal was the first (and last) modern global empire 1415 to 1974/76: India, Brasil, Africa, Asia (e.g., Ilha Formosa (Taiwan), Macau) and of course, Portugal itself. It was the first European power to reach Japan, playing a decisive role for its unification, via introduction of firearms. Britain was the most successful modern European empire. Not the first and not the last.
At 17:19 Dr Stubb says that the West should not allow Russia to "create spheres of interest" while "sacrificing the sovereignty of its neighbors". I very much agree. But is the West not doing the same for decadas with a much richer track record than Russia? Is the US invasion of Iraq not a creation of a sphere of interest at the expense of the sovereignty of another nation? Does anyone else see a double standard in this?
When can we buy your book? Please also deal with the great over-indebtedness of states and private individuals and the problem of fiat money! If society breaks down because of this, there will no longer be any difference between the West on the one hand and Russia and China etc. on the other.
❤
Stubb is good
Very interesting, but do not forget in your book the Russian philosopher Dugin. Have you met him? Do you think he has influence on Putin?
🇺🇲 Baby Boomer here. Today's events are forming the most historical period of my lifetime. After a generation of relative stability, we enter into a new chaotic century and its multitude of challenges.
Sorry for the many mistakes ..could be earlier..am Aust best in many areas..
1 agree that were likely in for some big impact decisions. But were not at 1918, rather 1914(or 15? 13? Depends on what happens)
2 very vague (and honestly a bit of an overlong book title) unsure that grouping the countries together that much really is helpful. Individual countries will act in their own interest, and while there might be some aligment between similar countries, i dont see how broad groups of countries are a better analytical level than nations, alliances, institutions, etc.
3 also pretty vague. This doesnt go into any specifics, and will be "true" pretty much no matter what happens, which is great for a soothsayer but not actually useful. Maybe you go into more detail in the book, but it would be more interesting if you gave your thoughts on how the next world order might look like
What's going to happen next is a robot war as a prelude to a potential nuclear war, however it doesn't have to happen that way. It might not happen that way, however that seems to be the path technology is going to take us.
Two things which will contribute heavily to the coming world order, in my opinion, will be population changes due to decreased birth rates and the shuffling of priorities brought on by the physical and financial costs of climate change on various world populations. I am aware of the importance of Japan as an American ally but how severely will climate change alter that country’s power structure as islands shrink due to water levels altering coastlines as well as the severely aging population/low birth rate that nation faces?
So, Mr. Stubb decides to text Mr. Lavrov to put an end to this madness...he has friends in high places !
Sadly, if Alexander S. does not know what to think and what to do about the new world order then we are in for a very rough ride IMO.
As a finn. When he says if we could done otherwise? YES We could done that but our balls was to small and Obama have no balls at all. In the end we should blame Obama most
As someone from the global south, specifically South Africa, I think our perspective is greatly underrepresented in the global discord. What has been happening here is unprecedented co-operation, particularly in sub-saharan Africa. The unraveling conflict between East and West is providing us with the opportunity to break the chains of the modern global economy that enslaves us by exploiting the natural resources of Africa. The continent is going into an invisible revolution where nations are poised for a shift in prosperity. The war in Ukraine is a catalyst, the tough economic climate in Africa has incubated resilience and we will likely see African institutions flourish as the east and west burn eachother's resources. The global south will refuse to be a proxy war zone playground as it was during the cold war.
Tämä ukkeli on pitänyt valitettava, että Euroopassa on edelleen kansallisvaltioita. Nyt hän on pyrkimässä sellaisen johtoon. Täysi pelle.
I am hoping that Alex will take a more balanced approach in his book. He seems to neglect the role that America played when it deemed itself the sole uni-polar power in the world. The invasion of Iraq in 1991 by the USA was the start of the uni-polar power structure with the US believing that they can invade at will or overthrow governments when it deemed necessary for a rule based order. The bombing of Serbia in the late 90s by the USA was another sign of uni-polar strength. Of course there were various American interference in the internal affairs of many countries in the global south, ie in Africa and in Latin America before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. And should we forget the USA's war with Libya which many Libyans refer to as Nato's war and the destruction that it caused in that country? Rule based order gone amuck.
There is an assumption that there ever was a stable world order. The cold war was a war largely by other than military means, and was very disruptive of political order. Post-Soviet and pre-9/11 saw all the grounds laid for a rogue and criminal Russian state. And post-9/11 was a 20-year war against non-state actors, which continues. There has been no genuinely stable peace. The plunge into our current state of affairs can be placed squarely on the shoulders of an irrational reactionary authoritarian movement exemplified by Trump, which now seems to be on the decline. It's odd to be predicting chaos when the authoritarian authors of chaos are clearly not prevailing.
While drinking a relaxed latte in cafes around government offices, you tend to underestimate the bastard who wants to steal your watch. What is important is not how the three moons revolve, but whether we want to influence our own trajectory. The title should be: "We have learned nothing and we do not want to learn anything."
One of the things I was thinking about is the issue of the Global East - namely lead by China and Russia, vs the Global West. One thing strikes me is the Global East- namely China (and Russia) are lead by autocratic (Perhaps dictatorial is too strong a word) regimes, lead by the strength of personality (Xi, Putin). We know from history such regimes tend to actually be very unstable, even if they can be long running. Once the personality is gone, things start to become unstable. Western democracies, tend to have institutions that tend to be very stable - although they can be undermined. The US and the UK have extraordinary strong institutions - even if they are being tested by Trump or people like Boris Johnson. The recent events in Poland shows that illiberal populism can be held in check and reversed. So I am skeptical of the longevity of the Global East - although I can see more long term instability - especially because of Climate change resulting in accelerated mass migration - and this is the biggest threat to global stability because it may turn out to be disruptive.
You have monarchy rule in Europe which is not a democracy
Two party' system in USA almost close to one party system like China and Russia
If it is a battle between autocracy vs democracy ,
I would suggest European union and USA must end trade with autocracies
You institutions are designed to loot and dictate the terms to other countries but you are not following the rules.
7 billion people lives in Asia, Africa and Latin America they are not there to keep your Monarchy rich
People are educating, information is today widely available..
The economic growth doesn't come from China or Russia but they are strong players
Don't live in old order world mindset better start live in realistic World
The concept of global south, east and west feels rather amorphous. I may be old fashioned in thinking that perhaps a more complicated but perhaps more salient approach would be along ethno-religious lines. Putin's thoughts that Ukrainians are really simply Russians and Xi's China insisting that ethnic Chinese must somehow be brought into the fold with Taiwan and the Pan-Arab influence seems to be a more fruitful approach perhaps? Not forgetting Modi and the Hindu revivalism.
china has historically been a global trade hub the only reasons they are not now are political.
Huntington tried it, but failed as well as Fukuyama.
Here's another theme: God helps those who help themselves. If we contrast the worlds response to Afghanistan vs. Ukraine, the main difference was that in the absence of US boots on the ground, Ukraine fought to maintain its independence, and Liberty, Afghanistan, didn't. That's an oversimplification, I'm sure, but more or less true.
One of the lessons the US has learned (or should have learned) during the last 100 years is that westernizing through occupation doesn't work. More accurately westerizing by external force doesn't work. When the US occupied Japan, it was already on a journey to westernization. In fact, the creation of the pre-WW2 Japanese empire was a Japanese effort to apply lessons learned from Western Colonial powers and an effort to emulate them. So westernizing Japan was "easy" because it already wanted to westernize.
On the other hand, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all failures because there was resistance to westernization.
Perhaps another theme might be "Those who live in the past are doomed to repeat it." Iran, Turkey, China, and Russia (Perhaps India as well) all see themselves as resurgent empires. They are trying to rekindle past glory or are leaning heavily on historical "greatness" to justify expansionist policies or the right to dominate their neighbors.
The US is not immune to this either. What was once simply a way to maintain national pride and unity in pursuit of "economic expansionism" has now devolved into an identity crisis that insists that the US must maintain itself as the the once and future king. ( Europe, until recently, was happy to go along with this idea)
To summarize, we're living in an era where the past has come back to haunt us. Both the sins of the past, as well as the pursuit of past glories. The liberal West is naiivly idealist in trying to move into a future where might does not make right. Most of the rest of the world seems content with living at least in the 18th and 19th centuries, if not further back in time.
Sure blame afghans for US mistake, US catered to a bunch of warlords who were selling drung to have some obedient servants there. And they stoled all the aid send by the west, alienating the population. At day a government clerk built a bridge with US money, at night his brother from Taliban's blew it up, and Americans payed for a new bridge. And second is about culture, few afghans were exposed to western culture to know what they have lost with Taliban's. Also Afghanistan was very decentralized for centuries, there was only tribal loyalty no concept of citizenship. The US backed government tried to centralize the power, but local tribes were reluctant to fight for this new corrupt government. So when government fell they didn't hurry to defend it.
Not blaming the Afghans, I'm talking about the worlds reaction/perception. Because the Afghan fighting spirit collapsed so quickly, the world didn't come to the Afghan's rescue, as it did for Ukraine. If Russia's 3 day war had been successful the result would have been the same.
But this is missing the point. The point is unless you have a strong desire to join the modern world and to adopt "Western" Values, these can not be forced upon you by external parties. At least not within one generation! It would take many generations of "education" and experiencing Western Values to transform a resistant population!
Keep in mind that the US occupied Afghanistan for 20 years! There were over 2000 US troop deaths in Afghanistan (20,000+ Wounded) Which is a big deal to Americans! The US spent over $2 Trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan. ($2,000,000,000,000! or about 10% of annual US GDP)
The West simply couldn't afford to commit to re-educating the entire population of Afghanistan for many generations in the hopes that it could result in a western friendly nation.
Yes it was a US mistake to believe that nation-building by occupation was possible! This is why I contrasted it with Japan. If the West relies on the post WW2 Japanese experience, they will be deriving the wrong lesson, because Japan was already trying to "Westernize" before the war started.
I classify any attempts at Nation building as Colonial Arrogance. The idea being that your culture is so superior that no people would hesitate to adopt it once they experience it,. Even if they have to experience it through occupation!
I will give Afghanistan credit. No nation in history has been able to conquer them! They're stubborn. I'll give them that.
Great talk, as always. It makes sense that you reference Fukuyama's 'end of history,' as you have an optimistic lean. I would, however, be very careful HOW you reference this questionable book. The big attention It received was more infamy than fame. No serious thinkers believed he was correct. Besides his thesis obviously being empirically wrong in hindsight, his narrow, American view of the world was apparent. Though naive, his optimism wasn't the problem. It's his teleological, history-has-an-ending, view that was always philosophically wrong. It's the same wrongness as Marx thinking communism was a utopian endpoint where humanity would find homeostasis. Asking where history 'ends' is a bad question. It assumes a structure that does not fit sociopolitical evolution or human nature. These objections, and others, were raised since the book's publication.
I think the key factor is the US Europe alliance.
The question is, Is the world any more disordered than it was before? Perhaps not. It's a constant testing of levels of power, including interventions in places where one side judges the other to not be openly committed to direct counter-action, so they largely fly under the radar or are only mildly opposed.
I mean I can count the West's interventions in Panama, Granada, Lebanon, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya since 1990. Russia basically Chechnya, to assert sovereignty over contiguous territory, in Georgia; and Ukraine, basically in response to NATO attempts at membership and claims of sphere of influence; and China in extending control over Tibet for similar reasons.
In other words, pretty much both sides tend to intervene particularly in places where there is an expectation that the other side won't offer outright support and chances of winning appear high. Clearly both Iraq and Ukraine represent bad risk assessments.
What the great peer competitors all want to avoid are direct confrontations. Those aren't good. But otherwise the world seems as disordered as ever.
NATO did not attempt to claim Ukraine, neither it had intentions to make it a member. If you went back to 2008, the West collectively postponed this question, relying on Russian peaceful intentions. If it happened as you described (with NATO intention to include Ukraine as its member, Ukraine would not suffer Russian aggression in the first place). In case you are referring to 2013-2014, it happened to much Western surprise. Moreover, later on, Ukraine was receiving quite negative signals from NATO and EU. So the key element of your argument is already faulty.
@@vonscheer5850 That's not the key element of my argument.
With all due respect that you deserve, and considering the request to provide suggestions in this space, I would like to comment on a fundamental variable in the analysis that is likely present in the book but is not mentioned. On one hand, it is not very clear if the three power blocks are monolithic; both in the West and the East, there are evident fissures not only in form but also in content. Despite the similarities in the political units of NATO, since 1945, a competition between Central Europe and the United States has persistently emerged. As Kissinger and Brzezinski warned, Europe will continue seeking greater independence from the polarity exercised by the United States. The same applies to China and Russia, not to mention the Global South, so fragmented and asymmetric that, unable to ensure its territorial security, it will struggle to establish forms of cooperation and consistency on the international stage.
Now, this lack of cohesion among the three power blocks you mention also stems from non-state transformations of power, such as religions. For example, Islam in Europe will be decisive in the next decade, implying conflicts with the 'Western block,' which, up to now, has remained Christian, particularly in North America. The same holds for Russia and China; to what extent can they reproduce homogeneous spaces among the power blocs when interactions are so different? How can Sharia Law align with the Rule of Law?
This also changes the conclave of the Nation-State (I understand that the book may not intend to be overly academic, but it is crucial to recognize that, based on all these changes in power, the territorial power matrix is going to shift). How will we organize ourselves as a society? Will we adopt old imperial references and mix them with city-states? While there is a tendency to demonize the Western-style empire, in the history of Eastern empires, there are different spatial configurations, and this may also be entering political-administrative innovation in the 21st century. All of this, of course, highlights that states are not capable of ensuring global services without the ability to cooperate (though I understand that the concept of power diffusion by Nye will likely be addressed in the book).
Thank u very much for providing this space of knowledge, and I will be waiting to purchase the book as soon as it comes out.
New era: The warring states period
Akateeminen presidentti, joka haluaa syvällisesti ymmärtää mihin maailma on menossa, ei tekisi Suomelle pahaa.
3rd thesis: On the Path to Global Government
first remark
Alex Stubb - Finland´s next president. May he be as good as Sauli Niinistö! Greetings from Finland
Why didn't you visit Taiwan❓❓❓
I'm looking forward to buying the book, Alex. As to your statement about the significance of this decade - the 2020s - this may seem frivolous to mention, but astrologers have stated that this decade will be highly disruptive and literally world-changing.
I think we're all seeing this, whether it's due to astrology or not. 😅 Good to see you posting videos again.
The last thing the world needs right now is more superstition and disinformation poisoning the discourse on real issues.
"Could the west have done something different? Not really(...)" I have to disagree. The west should have been more hawkish after the 2008 summit when the Russian opposition to Ukraine's and Georgia's pro-western ambitions started being gradually clearer and more vocal. The worse alternative was not promising those two countries the NATO membership. Unfortunately, the west chose the third, worst path- antagonising Russia without providing Ukraine and Georgia effective protection. It was a failure of strategic imagination on the western leaders' part.
It's a very clever remark. I think about Bucharest often when I hear about Western responsibility and wonder if aggression had been prevented if Germany and France said yes to membership of Ukraine and Georgia. However, the last two paths are equal in their outcomes. Antagonizing, in fact, was not fully committed until 2022, when the last hope shattered. I would argue that not antagonizing enough was the key mistake.
IDK I see that its a nicety to wrap a future history in a package and be alright with the bow made before the contents are (I believe this maybe only because the author is sitting in a "winners" chair, since its they who write history). Its just that to pinpoint a timeline that is "almost" predictable is fool hearty. Also WTH with just generalizing (and embiggening) a commie quote. Ill watch more, thanks.
Title: The Polyglot World
Feels to me this book is written for 2022, not 2023. All he can talk about is the Soviet Union, Russia, Ukraine, and cold war. look at the Gaza vote at the UN vs the Ukraine vote.
This book has no predictive value. It is out of date, out of gate. The book is more about imagining European problems as world problems.
The 3 thesis has no substance.The first two thesis has been said before. Kishore Mahbubani has long said the geopolitical contest between US and China will be decided by the other 6 billion people. Let give credit to where it is due. Thesis 3 is obvious. Unfortunately Alex could not give us a clear idea of the new order.
I am surprised that your analysis does not look at the concept of justice. It is central to understand the worldview of the East and the South. The US represents 5% of the world's population. Why should it make the rules for everyone else to follow ? Where is the justice in that ? Where is the democracy in that ? ( at the world level, US hegemony can be seen as an authoritarian use of power ). I respect your experience but you do seem to cary a heavy western centric worldview. I say this without animosity, maybe a tad of disappointment, such a western centric approach makes it impossible to understand Lavrov's point of view, and such a western centric approach is precisely part of the problem.
West is making the rules because it was successful. That's why all countries use western calendar. Do you think that good old dictatorship should have same the weight as a democracy ? Because if you give to Putin the same power as Biden's you do this.
There are no *EAST, WEST, SOUTH, NORTH for ELITES.*
*THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.* 😂😂😂
Enjoy yr work...get a verbal ticket ..I got one in 1974..so not have to suuuuffer ddiiiieee
I have to disagree about your thesis around 14 mins on the era after 1945 of "relative peace"; the US was engaged in one conflict after another - Korean War, Vietnam War, the never ending conflict in the Middle East, the Falklands War, the breakup of Yugoslavia, Soviet and then US entry in Afghanistan, Iraq and the large number of Islamic jihads across the middle east and Africa. The ONLY thing that didn't happen was a major land war in Europe (other than Yugoslavia's breakup).
Why does the global east Want To be different? Why do different nations have these different views & ideals about things that to westerners seam only logical and rational to the success of humanity?
we can turn this around - why does the global west want to be different? Why do they have different views about things that easterners find rational? We are all children of our upbringings, and have a hard time breaking the mold. (I'm a westerner too and so can't really answer the question)
Leaders of countries can put their power above other considerations. Populations can follow false prophets into radicalism.
@@RobBCactive
Both you and Laura speak truth here.
After posting my question I started trying to figure out the answer myself.
Middle & Working class citizens don’t usually question their country’s leadership or global position. They just follow the law and exist. As long as they have Work, income, food and a roof over their heads, they are content.
Humans will exist and survive in many different forms of Cultism no matter how good or bad they are. Generally only a minority will come to realise that from outside of their environment, not everything is as it seems. 🤔
@@Aussie-Mocha as Alex said the global east is Russia & China, they are both autocrats who want to assert power their own people and other countries without the restraint of International law.
We've all seen rogue populist politicians who disregard laws, engage in corruption and have run incompetent governments. Vladolf's friend Berlusconi for example.
Japan's modernist democracy fell to militarist sentiment with a radicalised population who sought to build an empire in China and the E. Pacific. There's an interesting documentary on that history by Kraut I think.
There's been plenty of rogue dictators/monarchs in European history so I think it's a mistake to believe Alex's western ideals naturally prevail due to western vs eastern characteristics.
Power corrupts.
Really? Trump is "only logical and rational to the success of humanity?"
I hope you arrogantly texted Netanyahu as quickly as you texted Lavrov. Russia had to defend its national security and people and begged the West and Ukraine to come to their senses. You all laughed at their security concerns for two decades. You aren’t laughing now.
Correction..2017..in 4 yrs..the Boss's is not normally early..last year month 4 it..1948..plus longers generation 79 yrs is 2027..after that a 7 yrss of destruction..those left behind...onlen sssuuoommaallainen..hiiide from my hhhhatters
If Putin could turn back time, would he still carry out "the special military operation" in Ukraine? It is really hard to imagine that he would.
Where is the best place to grow opium in america
The nebulous age
New without NATO
Thanks for yr work research....I think rrrapppture in sep 2014..a verbal..ticket will get U in..watch..nicles cage movie..Leaf behind...Jjjuummaallann, siunausssttta kaikkessaa..
God bless you..
I would also like if you also go into the cause of this russia ukraine conflict. 1991 collapse did not end history, it merely paused it till Russia stands up again. . There will never be ever lasting peace in europe. It had never been in last 2000 years and thats because there are different power centers existing within this region.
The world is not a historical continuity. Start thinking, not about geopolitics, but about geochronology. Different geological countries are at different times - Russian behaviour is quite normal for the middle ages. They have'nt progressed to the 21 st century yet. Imagine that you are a settler or a conquistador arriving in the americas discovering a society living in the stone age. How strange you would find the people. They were able to just kill off and dominate the local population. Different countries are living, culturaly, in different times, and, just like tectonic plates, where different times clash and contact one another, there are upheavals. Think about it.
Re peace cost for people behind iron curtain, russian army manuals from mid 2000 explaining how to attack baltics, ignoring chechen wars
Russia and China want new world order as you say. Autocracy in stead of democracy. The West stands for democracy. What is your evaluation on the real will by parts of the Western world like in Hungary, would they like the autocracy new world order or existing world order? On what side is Trump? Does the new world order have strong followers in the West? Stronger than we think?