How Xi & Putin think - maritime vs continental powers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2023
- With Naval War College Historian Sarah C.M. Paine
Full video: • Sarah C. M. Paine - WW...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/073V...
Transcript: www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
great segment. really appreciate your work and look forward to seeing your growth in the future.
Agree with these as base views, but remember PRC wants to be a maritime superpower as well, so maybe that's continentalism afloat. PRC ignoring Taiwan would be a super strategy, not just for economy but for strategic focus. But Xi would rather run it all into the ground, so perhaps the continental view plays into that as well.
Not everything is about money. It's about raw power.
I love the clarity and honesty of this woman's thinking. Beautiful thinking.
I like her but she is looking at world through American exceptionalism mindset. She clearly doesn't understand or trying to understand other side
This also explains the common puzzlement (at least from mommentators in the US and UK) why Germany didn't just follow Bismarck's example, fight only defensive wars, and dominate Europe economically instead of militarily.
After watching your Smoot-Hawley tarriff video it's ironic that pushed Japan to think continental instead of maritime since they were fairly new to the maritime power thing.
The maritime, trade approach only works when there are willing trade partners. Japan could only gain resources through conquest because the US and China didn't cooperate
No different from the US securing one end of the continent to the the other from East to West by purchasing or militarily. Then transforming to a maritime strategy later on.
The influence of Sea Power….maritime power pioneered by Spain…
On a planet that's 3/4 water , one should consider priorities ? An old saying but still true....he who controls the oceans controls the world ? 🌍✌️🌎
worked!
As per usual, the one thing you can always count from an Anglo is self-aggrandizement.
Were the colonies of the British (an imperial "maritime power") acting as maritime or continental powers in the 18th century when they settled on the East coast of the New World? What about after independence and federalism when they expanded westward, genociding the natives for land? I suppose they were operating rather like a continental power at that point, don't you think? And what about when they finally achieved Lincoln's dream of a coast to coast, Atlantic-to-Pacific islandic empire, and waged war on other "maritime powers" like the Japanese in WWII? A maritime power again? Rubbish.
I dont feel like you made a point here. Yea, the natives were pushed away to start with in initial colonialization efforts... but Japan was different.. Japan took the first shot.. after year's and year's of antagonizing china.. I didnt see much self granduer there on part of the americans
@@gulfgunner9829 The point had little to do with Japan per se. The point is that the distinction between a "maritime power" and a "continental power" is situational, therefore it is morally self-aggrandizing to imply that Anglos have some enlightened worldview and propensity for acquiring power by trade unlike the Russians or Chinese who prefer conquest. America, and the colonies and European powers it came from, all function as "continental powers" up until the point that they successfully subjugate their neighbors and control geographically defensible borders, at which point they go "maritime power" mode. So it happened as the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants subjugated their neighbors on the British isles, and the Yankees subjugated the South in a civil war, and the USA subjugated enough of the Northern Mexican states on its Southern border, and the British colonists conquered and subjugated the lands they arrived in, culturally and genetically purging it of its native inhabitants etc., etc.
@timothy9634 It sounds like you are commenting with a bias... its not a secret that trade and money is a very very beneficial way to take over and control a region and it's people.. I wouldn't call it enlightened.. id call it having the awareness that all people want more money and material things.. it just happens to be something they want enough to be politically altered to gain.. I would argue britian has always been a maritime power but has never reached continental power... had put putin taken the money route with his people and ukraine, and maybe built 100s of billions in natural resource refining... like oil.. rare earth metals.. gas.. I think he could've played the long game and successfully gained power in ukraine..
@timothy9634 I also don't understand what you're meaning by the term "anglo" id assume someone of Anglo saxin decent?
Listen to Sarah, she gets it.
This lady is really oversimplifying geopolitics. As a professor from the US war college, she speaks confidently. But holy crap, it's an oversimplification and borders on disingenuous.
give me a break. it's a three minute clip. what did you expect? you of course are yet another brilliant "stable genius"
i agree. in the original video she was also quite biased. she speaks as if the maritime bloc doesn't have its own geopolitical agenda. in the past similar countries in terms of culture and law fight each other all the time over geopolitical conflicts. she so easily said that china's welcomed into the maritime if it plays by their rules but conveniently didn't mention that china's containment was due at least in part to competitive reasons. Definitely not because of moral and ethics as is evident in the past year with the middle east and all. But that's natural and it is what it is. Tribes and countries go to war for their own selfish reasons.
Very incisive
The distinction between a maritime mindset and a continental mindset is brilliant.
The net-negative of Putin's military aggression is being felt the hardest by Russian speaking Ukrainians and Putin simply does not care.
It's going to be felt hardest by all Russians. This war risks everything to gain nothing, and when it's over, Russia will still be poor, and still experience brain drain, until it's a massive albeit 3rd world nation.
This isn't a great take. Sure, Putler had fucked up in Ukraine, but it's not a zero sum gain. What ever territory he steals will be Russia's in perpetuity, in his mind. It makes almost any cost worth it so long as he eventually wins. Holding Crimea is also important for Russia to have access to the maritime domain. In case of Taiwan, China won't level it. Their advantage is too great and they are more competent than the terrorussian nazi barbarians. And Taiwan is the key to China's maritime empire ambitions. Unlike Russia, their continental Empire is geographically secure and yet they are stealing even more territory because you've guessed it; they are fascist states that believe in their supremacy.
If Russia took Ukraine there would be fighting and resistance for generations.
CCP is not clever n China is anon factor in 2029
"Who's massively increased their standards of living since the cold war? The third world."
When's someone gonna tell her about Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, ect
She is not incorrect: one century ago the third world was a colony of some empire.
@@edoardoturco8780 the cold War didn't end a century ago, their were no colonies by the end of the cold War that aren't still around today.
She's still wrong
@@thepicbloke7246 Hong Kong, Namibia, Macau, Eastern Timor and most of Eastern Europe by the Soviets in 1990. The cold war started with the blockage of Berlin in 1946. She is still correct.
@@edoardoturco8780can’t explain these points to idiots. They are the latter that instead want to prove that “tough guy” approach is the way geo/macro relations are run.
@@Mrbriangalvan Quickly, my dear, the approach you speak of was first described by Macchiavelli in The Prince, in which he outlined the figure of the so-called perfect ruler. According to the Florentine politician, a skilful prince had to be lucky, cunning and cruel. In short, he had to be willing to do anything to secure the fortunes of his homeland. Does this mean that a cruel act was preferable to a moral one? Actually, contrary to popular belief, Macchiavelli did not believe that violence should be the first choice. Take the example of Dialogo degli ateniesi e dei melii on justice in war. In this text, the melii justified their resistance to the Athenians because they believed themselves to be in the right, and they were massacred, but in the end the Athenians themselves lost the Peloponnesian War because the destruction of this small city tarnished Athens' reputation forever and it was gradually abandoned by its allies. In short, a morally reprehensible action can have benefits, but it must be used as a last resort and the consequences must be considered.
“International law” “rules based order” when will somebody tell her 😂😂😂
While Paine has some good points, the NeoLiberal point of view that making money (for oligarchs) is the only thing that matters comes through VERY strongly. She is clearly a VERY strong believer in "trickle-down" economics, despite 43 years of data proving that it does not work.
what is a better way than "trickle-down" economics? Communist countries have been an abject failure the standard of living is so low for most Chinese , and the same in Russia or Cuba
@@johnd921 Totalitarian countries have been an abject failure. Also, the USA had its greatest period of growth under the Socialist President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Socialist New Deal. That was the period where wages kept pace with productivity. The rich and powerful did not want that to continue so they instituted "trickle-down" aka "voodoo" economics to stop wage growth.
The biggest determinant of standard of living is not Capitalist vs Communist, it is which side of Colonialism your country was (and continues to be) on.
Also, lots of capitalist countries are just as poor as the countries you mention. Communist Cuba has a higher standard of living than Capitalist Mexico, or any other capitalist country in Central America despite the US embargo against them for over 60 years. Also, Cuba has a health care system that creates better outcomes than the US capitalist system of profiteering-off-of-illness.
Most Socialist governments in this hemisphere "failed" because when the people democratically elected Socialists, the Capitalists in the US backed Fascist military coups to overthrow them.
@@paulpeterson4216u live in an alternate universe. Cuba standart of living is abject poverty for the most part, eating an egg is considered luxury item. Mexico people have chickens and eat eggs on a daily basis. No usa president was ever socialist, that's revisionism.
Expected, socialists need the disney version for belief, and only wake up when they aren't the party chosen - that is u to a tee.
I know it's frequently repeated that statistics/studies prove that trickle down economics doesn't work but, out of curiosity, can you name any of these studies? Have you read them? Have they been narrowly focused on the impact on a limited segment of the economy or have they looked at the benefits and liabilities on the economy as a whole? How large was the study and at what point did the author's decide something was a significant impact? What was the statistical margin of error for a study of that size and was the stated impact within or outside of that margin of error? Have you followed up and checked criticisms of those studies to see if there were any errors that you hadn't spotted? Or have you just taken someone's word that this is true and accepted it as an article of faith? Because, while you seem to be willing to accept other people's word without question, most people are going to be asking for a bit more than "This is totally true dude. Trust me."
@@silverjohn6037 good point.
She believes what she's saying but it's a bubble of delusion.
Which part is wrong?
@@EricRogstad
Fallacy #1: 0:07 Putin thinks: If I control territory, that's what makes me secure.
Reality: NATO thinks if I control territory, that's what makes me secure - and that's why it's been expanding and encircling Russia.
Fallacy #2: 0:15 Maritime (Britain): I'm secure if I can maximize money from commerce so I can run transactions.
Reality: Britain is the lapdog of the US and supports it militarily in the takeover of oil and resource rich countries, in order to make money destroying and rebuilding them. This is where most of the money is spent and is earned.
Fallacy #3: 0:40 Putin wants more territory, he took Ukraine and Crimea but it's negative sum because he destroys the business.
Reality: Despite the US sanctions on Crimea in 2014 which significant pressure on international business in Crimea the economy grew 0.5% above projections and has since more than tripped the GVA of 2014
www.ceicdata.com/en/russia/gross-value-added-per-capita-by-region/gross-value-added-per-capita-sf-republic-of-crimea
Fallacy #4: 1:00 It's negative sum because he destroys tourism.
Reality: Tourism accounts for about 3.5% of the GDP of Russia is low during pandemics and war but between 2014 to 2020 it rose by 20% (3.46 to 3.48), Between 2010 and 2016 tourism rose 30% as a percentage of GDP with a microscopic dip of 5% in 2014.
Crimea's tourism did account for 20% of revenues in 2014 following a massive tourism infrastructure expansion. This figures have fallen by 30% since the military operation in Ukraine but these are more than offset by Russia's climb in tourism overall.
Fallacy #5: 1:05 It's so negative sum in Ukraine because he destroys wealth at a really rapid pace.
Reality: Ukraine's wealth is in it's fertile land and ores. War inflicts almost no significant long term damage on these markets.
I'm half way through and I was wrong about her. She's doesn't believe what she's saying she's grasping at straws trying to justify a narrative.
Really? Give an example in post industrial history where continentalism has added prosperity and maritime has decreased prosperity?
@@maphezdlinthe west is no saint at all like she pictures it to be. And it’s only gotten much worse recently.
I agree. She conveniently didn't mention that rival countries with similar culture and law goes to war with each other all the time in the past. Simply stated different countries have different geopolitical goals. To conveniently summarize current geopolitical conflicts by clustering countries into maritime vs continental powers or good vs bad is deliberate naivety and misdirection. She said it so easily that china's welcomed into the maritime bloc if it plays by their rules. But china got contained way before it supported Russia's war in Ukraine and the containment was for the most part not due to moral reasons but for competitive reasons.
By your own standards, you should have left the native american alone run their country, not talking about the mexicans and palestinians (through your zionist exclave)
Facts, she really is really drunk on this pro US/West Kool-Aid
"not talking about the Mexicans and Palestinians" ? What exactly are you referring to ? I mean you are not wrong about Manifest destiny, that was a move to ensure strategic depth and access to the Pacific proved to be a bonus.
*Jihad is devastating to economies.* It opposes women's rights which leads to a smaller workforce. It hampers productivity by injecting prayer and religious clothing requirements into the workplace. It promotes dishonesty which undermines trust essential for business.
Look at a world map and see how large Russia was in 1945. Look at a map of Europe today. Do you think Russia has expanded ? When do major powers pay attention to international law when it is inconvenient? IMHO, the Ukraine situation is similiar to the Cuban situation. The U.S. did not want a Russian armed Cuba. In the Ukraine, the Soviet Union did not want a NATO armed Ukraine as a neighbor. Germany and France were supposed to be solving the conflicts between two politically different Ukraine groups. But their solution was sending large amounts of military aid to Ukraine. So France and Germany miscalculated and created a bloody conflict. Merkle was reported to have said this. IMHO all this love and brothership in Europe is a falsehood. Maybe governments, but not average citizens. There are Poles who hate Germans/Russian/Ukranians, Irish who England, French who hate Germans, and and people from other countries with resentment that resulted from earlier wars and/or political domination.