59:10 as a chronic pain patient due to a genetic condition, I want to will … to will both Kuba and Varn to smile on the stream from time to time . I want this wish, for everyone should have an occasional giggle, some delightful relief and release 🤣 Take Care you three
@@totonow6955 me too. It is weird with the current president. Lots of people don’t know how seriously to take what is said, one can go into resistance liberal mode with that. But being nihilistic and waving it as impossible is also bad
@@VarnVlog A lot of that is just the hazard of TiR chat. Liberals poking their heads into leftist spaces don't have the knowledge or analysis to contribute, so they substitute sexual/racial in-jokes and pop culture references instead. It also doesn't help when huge portions of the military and geopolitical analysis on screen is propaganda, outdated, or just plain wrong. Ignoring or outright supporting pretty much every regime change attempt in the last decade while lying about stalemates in Ukraine and reformed headchoppers in Syria doesn't deserve serious conversation, it deserves ridicule and contempt.
as a naturalized us citizen, the one trait that drives me up the wall most about Americans is the utterly uncritical and profoundly sentimental chauvinism and exceptionalism. It takes incredible arrogance for a people who purportedly believe in liberal ideals of free association to discuss incorporating other peoples or territories without any regard to local sovereign will. And not to sound overly dramatic, but I think the odd leftist who parrots sympathy with such ideas is betraying the basic principles of socialist internationalism. At least Russia had to gin up a story of Russian patriots in Crimea and pro-Russian Ukrainians in East Ukraine being oppressed, credible or otherwise, and Russia has had to pay a high price for that too. But there's no organic movement of Greenlanders or Panamanians trying to get either Greenland or the canal zone into US sovereignty nor is there even the pretense of one beyond Don Jr paying 10 dudes in a bar to wear maga hats. I also think its a little loopy to claim that either move in Greenland or Panama would be done "peacefully" when the US has already threatened the use of force. Even if something like that happened as a "sale", the point is that armed coercion has already been raised as a threat. If someone pulls a gun and tells someone else to give them all their money, they cannot then claim it wasn't coercive because they didn't shoot the person they were mugging. I think a return to 19th century power-bloc politics would be very harmful to people in small countries. At least the Cold War and post CW order imposed some rational limits in how far the superpowers could go in dominating other states. They had to find some local elites with enough of a base to form a functional sovereign government. Larger underdeveloped states like Mexico have had at least some freedom to pursue their own foreign policy, albeit with an eye to not pissing off America (or earlier the USSR) too much. At least borders were more or less secure, at least for everyone except the Palestinians, Kashmiris, and West Saharans. It would be a great loss to transition to a world where the US, China, Russia, and India have free reign to bully their neighbors even to the point of extracting territory with minimal consequence. Especially because it makes a hot war between nuclear armed superpowers more possible in the long term. There are good reasons why we abandoned such geopolitics between WWI and WWII. TLDR, the "rules based international order" is bs, but lets not replace it with raw might makes right.
But US imperialism is GOOD don't you know? /s but seriously someone from here should have a word with those over at Sublation Media... Unless someone can explain to me why any of what they are saying over there about US foreign policy and what appears to be a blatant justification of it makes any sense? The discussion here was grounded in reality and provides a thoughtful critique of all that is going on. As someone not from North America, I join the rest of the world who must look on with concern regarding what ANY U.S. government does and how it affects the rest of us in this world.
I was reading Jeannie Kirkpatrick's neoconservative thinking from the 1970s recently and while it was obviously deeply objectionable, at least its geopolitical chauvinism was constrained by the idea that fully developed democracies ought to be left more or less alone, and borders ought not be changed by armed force alone. Of course its standards for that where wholly causistic. But it makes me think, if Trump has done away with the neoconservatives as his defenders argue, the alternative he's offering is as bad if not worse. The neoconservatives used jingoistic rhetoric to con American voters, but at least they werent dumb enough to believe their own rhetoric.
@@shannonm.townsend1232 good question. I don’t really see it that way but there was push back that Chinese investment didn’t always lead to collaborations with local workers. I wouldn’t consider that expansionist at all but I could see someone making at argument it was
Although "manifest destiny" was discussed briefly it really didn't get to the crux of the issue and its present relevance and historical context, nor other very related issues discussed in Cutrone's recent article, which whether one likes it or not has created many talking points - that's putting it very mildly - throughout the " political community" mainstream and" left". That's a policy/editorial decision for you guys but i found it strange,maybe to be addressed later ? My main point is what Derick mentioned more than once. There will be a shift over this next term, not profund on many fundamental issues regarding the state/deep state etc certainly not to the extent that is been talked up, but as DV says the status quo will change, it is changing and Trump has considerable social support to do so. In this situation - and it may be considered a " rightwards shift" - what is the response of the left, what has been the response of the left previously that partially led to Trump etc. This is the kernel of what is happening from a " left" perspective, it has nothing to say but a continuation of the anti trump superficiality, the " rise of the right and fascism" etc etc. Worse of all is that what it is doing, as exemplified here by Kuba, is exposing its inability to grasp social movements, to possibilities, incapable of having its own vision to convince anyone. So what does it do, it grasps at the status quo, the present , it fear mongers because of its own inadequacies, it cannot grasp the nettle of political potentiality and an opportunity for political clarity and a role the proleteriat could play in any changing society. No, it uses " radical" language to defend the present, be it a " rules based order" or " democracy" etc etc.
59:10 as a chronic pain patient due to a genetic condition, I want to will … to will both Kuba and Varn to smile on the stream from time to time . I want this wish, for everyone should have an occasional giggle, some delightful relief and release 🤣 Take Care you three
I appreciate Kuba at the end and his acknowledgment of the flippant discussion of foreign policy.
@@totonow6955 me too. It is weird with the current president. Lots of people don’t know how seriously to take what is said, one can go into resistance liberal mode with that. But being nihilistic and waving it as impossible is also bad
@ Rock and Hard Place
@@VarnVlog A lot of that is just the hazard of TiR chat. Liberals poking their heads into leftist spaces don't have the knowledge or analysis to contribute, so they substitute sexual/racial in-jokes and pop culture references instead. It also doesn't help when huge portions of the military and geopolitical analysis on screen is propaganda, outdated, or just plain wrong. Ignoring or outright supporting pretty much every regime change attempt in the last decade while lying about stalemates in Ukraine and reformed headchoppers in Syria doesn't deserve serious conversation, it deserves ridicule and contempt.
Glad to see varn doing solid foreign policy analysis
I hate varn he always judging me for eating ice cream with my forehead
as a naturalized us citizen, the one trait that drives me up the wall most about Americans is the utterly uncritical and profoundly sentimental chauvinism and exceptionalism. It takes incredible arrogance for a people who purportedly believe in liberal ideals of free association to discuss incorporating other peoples or territories without any regard to local sovereign will. And not to sound overly dramatic, but I think the odd leftist who parrots sympathy with such ideas is betraying the basic principles of socialist internationalism. At least Russia had to gin up a story of Russian patriots in Crimea and pro-Russian Ukrainians in East Ukraine being oppressed, credible or otherwise, and Russia has had to pay a high price for that too. But there's no organic movement of Greenlanders or Panamanians trying to get either Greenland or the canal zone into US sovereignty nor is there even the pretense of one beyond Don Jr paying 10 dudes in a bar to wear maga hats.
I also think its a little loopy to claim that either move in Greenland or Panama would be done "peacefully" when the US has already threatened the use of force. Even if something like that happened as a "sale", the point is that armed coercion has already been raised as a threat. If someone pulls a gun and tells someone else to give them all their money, they cannot then claim it wasn't coercive because they didn't shoot the person they were mugging.
I think a return to 19th century power-bloc politics would be very harmful to people in small countries. At least the Cold War and post CW order imposed some rational limits in how far the superpowers could go in dominating other states. They had to find some local elites with enough of a base to form a functional sovereign government. Larger underdeveloped states like Mexico have had at least some freedom to pursue their own foreign policy, albeit with an eye to not pissing off America (or earlier the USSR) too much. At least borders were more or less secure, at least for everyone except the Palestinians, Kashmiris, and West Saharans. It would be a great loss to transition to a world where the US, China, Russia, and India have free reign to bully their neighbors even to the point of extracting territory with minimal consequence. Especially because it makes a hot war between nuclear armed superpowers more possible in the long term. There are good reasons why we abandoned such geopolitics between WWI and WWII.
TLDR, the "rules based international order" is bs, but lets not replace it with raw might makes right.
But US imperialism is GOOD don't you know? /s but seriously someone from here should have a word with those over at Sublation Media... Unless someone can explain to me why any of what they are saying over there about US foreign policy and what appears to be a blatant justification of it makes any sense? The discussion here was grounded in reality and provides a thoughtful critique of all that is going on. As someone not from North America, I join the rest of the world who must look on with concern regarding what ANY U.S. government does and how it affects the rest of us in this world.
I was reading Jeannie Kirkpatrick's neoconservative thinking from the 1970s recently and while it was obviously deeply objectionable, at least its geopolitical chauvinism was constrained by the idea that fully developed democracies ought to be left more or less alone, and borders ought not be changed by armed force alone. Of course its standards for that where wholly causistic. But it makes me think, if Trump has done away with the neoconservatives as his defenders argue, the alternative he's offering is as bad if not worse. The neoconservatives used jingoistic rhetoric to con American voters, but at least they werent dumb enough to believe their own rhetoric.
Layer climate hell on top of all this. Buckle up!
Does anyone see China's belt and road as expansionist?
@@shannonm.townsend1232 good question. I don’t really see it that way but there was push back that Chinese investment didn’t always lead to collaborations with local workers. I wouldn’t consider that expansionist at all but I could see someone making at argument it was
You’ll never get the empire Varn!
Dont forget the Fenian invasion of Canada in 1866 from the USA.
:::Snorts at the War of 1812 joke:::
Although "manifest destiny" was discussed briefly it really didn't get to the crux of the issue and its present relevance and historical context, nor other very related issues discussed in Cutrone's recent article, which whether one likes it or not has created many talking points - that's putting it very mildly - throughout the " political community" mainstream and" left". That's a policy/editorial decision for you guys but i found it strange,maybe to be addressed later ? My main point is what Derick mentioned more than once. There will be a shift over this next term, not profund on many fundamental issues regarding the state/deep state etc certainly not to the extent that is been talked up, but as DV says the status quo will change, it is changing and Trump has considerable social support to do so. In this situation - and it may be considered a " rightwards shift" - what is the response of the left, what has been the response of the left previously that partially led to Trump etc. This is the kernel of what is happening from a " left" perspective, it has nothing to say but a continuation of the anti trump superficiality, the " rise of the right and fascism" etc etc. Worse of all is that what it is doing, as exemplified here by Kuba, is exposing its inability to grasp social movements, to possibilities, incapable of having its own vision to convince anyone. So what does it do, it grasps at the status quo, the present , it fear mongers because of its own inadequacies, it cannot grasp the nettle of political potentiality and an opportunity for political clarity and a role the proleteriat could play in any changing society. No, it uses " radical" language to defend the present, be it a " rules based order" or " democracy" etc etc.
Include one's self in all analysis ( Hegel ) or the analysis will remain regressive.