My main channel - th-cam.com/channels/6-3.html... My casual Chat channel - th-cam.com/channels/n7XHZiW6EUgSuxItybLLMg.htmlvideos Michael Millerman video 'Who is ""pro-Russia"? - th-cam.com/video/o8vGB-TznVY/w-d-xo.html You can now support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Thanks Vlad. You should take time to read « Alpaca commentatora » comment because it’s exactly one of the biggest problem we have with some European citizens and with a large part of African and South American peoples. They don’t really care of what is the war or not. They care about being liberated of the hegemony of the western countries. So they support Russia. It’s simple, basic… easy. This question of a « multipolar » World is important. And this could be my question (if I had any doubts) for a Q&A, but more probably a longer and deeper video: Why is not Russia and Poutine a good solution to the troubles in african, south american and other countries? What about the western hegemony in 2022? Yes, these questions were talked about, including in this video. But we get that comment again.
Hi Vlad, and thank you for your analysis as always. I would just add a request: as a non-native English speaker, I would just advise you, for eventual next reaction videos, not to overlap your comments over the original audio, as it becomes much more difficult (for me at least, but I think it may be true for other non-native speakers as well) to follow either you or the other person's discourse. Anyway, thank you for all you do, and don't forget to take care of yourself 😊
When someone speaks like that, my mind gets overwhelmed with responses but I can't get the thoughts actually sorted. And then you are there with a calm reasoning, and it's like my 'upstairs room' is cleaned and organized again. I find it a very admirable thing you do, and appreciate you obviously invested alot of time and energy in this skill. Thank you!
@@danielfoster9782 I could be wrong, but I think that "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle" is a translation of an old Yiddish saying (I looked it up once). I've heard it often here in Italy and seem to recall hearing it on TV a couple of times in the U.S., as well.
IMO the overwhelming of your mind is the intention of speakers like Dugin or Micheal. It puts the listener in a confused and emotional state, where he is more susceptible to illogical arguments.
I recognise this is an emotional response, but “multipolar” has become a dog whistle for Kremlin apologist in my mind. I see too many of them on Twitter and this is their favourite word
“Unipolar + U.S. Hegemony” are another tip off. At best it’s lazy thinking, at worst it’s intellectual dishonesty. U.S. hegemony has been tested and failed. I’m not making an either/or argument. I just wish to point out that much of the USA’s power is anti-hegemonic in nature. It has to build alliances through cooperation, consensus, and mutual interests. Unipolar hegemony is a dishonest myth that just won’t go away.
And the assumption is that Russia has an inherent *right* to be one of the poles in a multipolar world. In all terms other than geographical size, amount of natural resources and number of nuclear weapons, Russia is actually a middling power. Until last February, I believed Russia's preferences and concerns should be given consideration as serious as that given to any middle-sized nation, but I now believe they have forfeited the right to be treated with respect. Russia needs to get over the idea that the world revolves around Russia.
@Allan Mason it would kind of be like Canada demanding the world follow our dictates… oh, wait… our idiot Crime Minstrel actually *does* act like people should take him seriously.
If that dude (Micheal) was a Russian; he'd be walking around in a 'Z' T-shirt but would be the first at the border when national mobilisation is called.
It reminds me of the paradox of tolerance. You can't create a tolerant society if you tolerate intolerance. In the same way, you can't really create a harmonic multipolar world out of imperialist hegemonies that don't believe in multipolarity. As Vlad pointed out, Michael is unfortunately making the irrational jump from the abstract "multipolarity is good" to "adding ANY hegemony to the system will make it better". He's advocating for quantity without regard for quality.
@@Zeckenschwarm Also missing is any discussion of the quality of US hegemony and if movement toward multipolarity or toward unipolar consolidation would affect the quality of that hegemony. An interesting moment was the fall of the Soviet world. Did US hegemony get nicer or crueler on balance?
Incidentally, what some forget in this regard is that the USA and England (and Russia) were the guarantors when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and are only fulfilling their obligation to Ukraine. Perhaps some Americans who speak out against war or interference should be reminded of that! Much respect to you Vlad...
> USA and England (and Russia) were the guarantors when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and are only fulfilling their obligation to Ukraine Here is the relevant part of corresponding (Budapest) Memorandum (December 5, 1994): _4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in the event that Ukraine becomes the victim of an act of aggression or the object of a threat of aggression with the use of nuclear weapons._ That is: USA and England and Russia's obligation is only *"to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to provide assistance to Ukraine"* Nothing else, unfortunately... PS: However, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, any Member of the UN has the inherent right to defend it, alone or collectively.
@@alexleibovici4834 If one of the security council is blocking (Russia), which other options you have? Sorry for Ireland that i took out... 🤥🤔 PS: Thx, for the original text... 🤝
(And Russia) I am an American, I do not need to be reminded. You absolutely minimized the commitment that Russia had. They invaded. And no, I do not need any mumbo jumbo history lessons. Boots on the ground, utter destruction and lack of concern for human life. That is your (And Russia)
@@agripparapax3865 > If one of the security council is blocking (Russia), which other options you have? Oh, but in the Art. 1, 2 and 3 of the same Memorandum they (Russia) promised not to harm Ukraine in any way ! 😁
@@Lora_Lynn l'm not a russian and you're right! But Russia is the Aggressor and blocked anyone petition in UN. Which another option have Ukraine against a security council member like be supported by another one. PS: If you known a lesson than this from WW2!
This argument basically comes down to "As long as you are doing it with the intention to create a multi-polar world, you should totally be allowed to conquer your neighbors."
My god, this was tough to watch. This Michael fellow seems to be the kind of person that tries to make themselves appear very friendly, laidback, harmless and reasonable, when in fact they're extremely manipulative.
Agreed. Also someone who tries to make themselves seem intelligent, but has no analytical abilities whatsoever. The gaps in thinking he makes are huge 😂
@@Me-vl6jl Ah, but the point is not necessarily to get you to endorse Russia. This is largely the same mentality that was being encouraged in Russia. The point is to get people to accept, to ponder, and to get hung up on issues like: "perhaps we, as individuals, shouldn't get involved", "let's not just jump to condemning Russia", "Russia has legitimate concerns", "well, there is a history of fascism", or "above all, we need to prevent any escalation". And I don't mean considering these as starting points, it's a question of accepting this as an unquestionable, terminal, set of basic positions.
It's a triumph of the American concept of free speech (via the 1st Ammendment) that Mike can say this unmolested. I doubt this would be the case in Russia, China, Iran or any other actor he wishes to giftwrap some degree of hegemony to .
So you support America having global hegemony? I guess you don't understand why Russia generates sympathy in non-Western countries, none of these nations want Western hegemony
@@tahwsisiht America are pro self determenation? Okay, Anubis’s they removed the leader of a free Iran and put on the ayatollahs(the reason the country is Islamist now). Both Russia and USA suck
@@alpacacomentadora413 Yeah, this “either/or” thinking reveals you to be intellectually dishonest. Enjoy your free speech, but we see you for what you are, a lying apologist.
"Globalism, meaning a single global hegemon." Michael's statement really makes me scratch my head, because who said that globalism has to be a hegemony? Globalism can just as much be a more democratic version of todays UN or EU, where every single country has democratic vote and not a single country has a veto right or like in the EU where everyone has a veto right when it comes to certain topics. For me the view that we need a hegemon or a multi polar world seems old fashion. I don't think hegemony will ever get us to a peaceful world, because there will always be countries(like Russia today) that will feel forgotten and left out of the sphere of power. The UN has shown that it is possible to live in a more diplomatic world, but of course some of the issues with the UN has also shown that the current structure is not perfect and can be improved.
As a Ukrainian, I’m disgusted with that guy’s argument. How does murdering civilians and bombing civil infrastructure help forming bi-polar world? Why does this paradigm exist, where there countries compete who is more powerful? Except for authoritarians to satisfy their egos… We need a world where individuals live their lives and are free to do what they want and co-exist with other individuals.
Ukrainian forces murdering civilians and shelling area controlled by Russians as well but this is never mentioned in the Western media (even from 2014)...Yes Russia attacked and occupied those regions we know that but the narrative is that only Russian commit atrocities and crimes...As we know in civil wars there are crimes and atrocities committed from all sides and this is the only true (the difference is who has more arms and power)...There is no morality in the war as we have seen in the war in former Yugoslavia ....
I could be wrong, but isn't a flaw in Millerman's reasoning, that he assumes putin-the-thing wants a multipolar world? Because I suspect that putin would really prefer being the big shot at the top, with EVERYBODY else below him. I think he very much wants a unipolar world, with him as the czar that rules the planet. Also, I think Michael is also wrongly assuming putin is in any way a reasonable man. Just my humble opinion.
A multipolar world is the only thing Russia can aspire to, because it is not strong enough. Instead China seeks a multipolar world due to its non-universalistic cultural nature, the West instead seeks to dominate the entire world due to its universalist culture.
Greetings from Prague. Thank you for the work you do. To me, the commented video has one more aspect, reoccurring in public space. People who disagree with the political situation in their respective countries tend to believe, that Russia is fighting their fight too. No, it is not. We should prevent ourselves from reducing Ukraine and its people to a subject in arguing conflicts/problems that predate this war.
Same thing with China. Those disillusioned with the West are just as susceptible to authoritarian propaganda as they are to homegrown fascist propaganda. THINK FOR YOURSELVES, PEOPLE. No country, no government has all the answers, nor should every one of them get the same type of respect and legitimacy. For example: the terrorist regime that is the Islamic republic
Smart comment 👏👏👏 Russia is not fighting on anyone else's behalf. Individuals tend to think that if Putin is against their government, he must be pro-THEM 🤡
Dugin really is a strange little man. Having listened to quite a few of his speeches/debates, he always comes back to the idea of Russia being "different" than or having some sort of "special" place in the world. He mostly justifies this with very vague generalities, like Russian mysticism and as some sort of counter-balance to the "decadent" or degenerate" West, in order to justify Russian authoritarianism. When pressed on what specifically Russia is different or "better" on than the West, you get a lot of word salad from Dugin, with some reference to repressing rights of minority (such as gays). He comes off as an apologist for the authoritarian Russian regime, without being able to explain what makes the system preferable to a Western style democracy.
Exactly, I find the idea that we don’t already have a multipolar world a weird denial of reality. China may not be an absolute peer to the USA but it has an undeniable political and economic gravity.
This line of thought is actually quite prevalent in India, and somewhat common in South America. The prospect of a victory of Russia and thus a defeat of North america and EU would shake up the current hegemonic world order, providing oportunities for surging countries that feel somewhat opresed by the aparent superiority of the stablishment. This is in no small part because of the decades of interventionism by the USA during the cold war, and the colonialism of Europe before that. They pay little heed to the idea that a new world order could actually be worse. I will say it here as I have said before: Whatever power is set to compete or surpass the West must be better economically, politically and morally. People see the failings of the west, and think of what can be done better, which is plenty and an excelent thought to have, but its hard to understand the amount of bad they could be doing. For that you can easily look at China and Russia. I have more faith on the USA and Europe improving on their mistakes than on China or Russia becoming the new pole of the world.
As soon as people from Asia, Africa and South America start to migrate to China and Russia instead of the USA or Europe I will start to take this seriously. We could start with Hungary providing shelter for the Russians fleeing mobilization.
Are you saying that people in India, South America and Africa are waiting to be under the dominance of Russia, but only if Russia wins a war over its own ex-republic in a continent that they don't even know anything about? What is a "prospect of a victory" over what? They are just destroying a country and winning exactly NOTHING, apart from some land. They want Kiev to put their government there and they still didn't get it after one year. What if Russia loses? Are India, South America and Africa be deluded and call Russia a loser they don't want to be under? Are human beings so retrograde in all respects? I agree that any dominant power should be improved compared to US and Europe for a better world. Russia isn't that improvement.
Ah, Vlad, TH-cam recommended Millerman's video to me after watching one of yours, got about 2 minutes in before I had to take a break, as it was so aggravating. It was this very video. Feel so much better watching it with you. What annoyed me was taking a reasonable premise to an unreasonable conclusion. Do we support Iran, North Korea, etc. because they challenge or "stand up to the US"? How about Hitler standing up to British and French Imperialism (which was still a thing then)? I remember in the late 70s, Stalinists would ask me: "What's wrong with the Poles, why don't they let the Russians make of Poland a better and more just society?" My response then (unfortunately, an exaggerated response, triggered by my anger), was that this showed the same depth of analysis as someone asking "What's wrong with the Jews in 1930s Germany, don't they want the trains to run on time?" A fairer response would be "What's wrong with the Poles in the Polish People's Republic, don't they want all their trains to break down and always be late"? What killed all support for the PZPR was not that it represented evil, it was that there was NOTHING good that it could even pretend to represent. It was only there because there was no choice.
Millerman is not worth much attention. His argument here is worth confronting, only because others use it as well. Still, glad you did this, as it let me confront and crystallize my criticism, without posting on his channel, where it would probably do less good, and might have taken me down a rabbit hole of bickering comments. Bottom line: Yes, alternatives are good. An alternative must offer something. Some things are not alternatives, they are an obstacle to the very possibility of an alternative.
Id argue that his premise is fatuous and not tethered to reality, but to a false narrative that can be factually disproven. The U.S. has tested its “hegemonic power” twice this century with boots on the ground and failed both times. Therefore, it is much less hegemonically powerful than the Russian propagandists would like you to believe.
LOVED IT! 😚 Vlad, more of these reaction videos! 🤩 Just one thing. If you don't talk over the other person while they are speaking it will be easier to hear every word you AND they say. Apart from that; brilliant!
Don't you find it 'funny' that this way of thinking almost always comes from people in western countries and rarely from the countries in Central Europe that were a part of 'The Russian Empire' until 1989? Just a thought, but... If everyone you know suddenly ran away from their neighbor and bought themselves a bunch of guns in case he comes back, wouldn't that be a clue about the guy? That maybe... just maybe, there was something very wrong with him? I honestly don't get it. Over here, in Poland, even the most anti-American people would NEVER want to live under the 'Russia Hegemony' again. And yet, more and more people in the West seem to see their civilization as evil and Russia (and China) as some counterweight and/or savior. It's depressing 😑.
Exactly. Only a person with prison mentality mixes respect with fear, admiration with deference. Those kind of people rule in russia now. Only a fool would mix russian imperialism with any meaninful substance. Mr Michael would do better trying to change his country instead of drawing new borders on the world map.
@@ShankarSivarajan US law includes both penalties and protections. The exercise by the individual of rights is limited by the right of others' not being violated, and the greater good of public health and safety not being endangered. In the US the gov't is by definition rule of law. You can defy the right of free speech by refusing to speak. There will be no "retaliation" for making that decision. Or you can say just about anything without "retaliation" -- i.e., enforcement of the rule of law -- so long as it doesn't cause or encourage endangering of public health and safety, or the health and safety of another individual. In short: it isn't black-and-white as you misunderstand it. The freedoms one enjoys is protected in written law -- not antithetical to the rule of law. But, of course, you envision a perfect human in a perfect society where laws and gov't and law enforcement aren't necessary. But that isn't going to ever happen any time soon.
I am no cheerleader for either globalisation, or the dominance of Western hegemony, and I do not conflate freedom of speech with democracy, but... The simplest rebuttal to this man is to pose the question 'assuming that he were in Russia and posing the same question in reverse would he be free to publish his thoughts in the same way?'
Good question, but it doesn't settle it. Dugin wouldn't deny that. The argument could be made that freedom of speech isn't a sustainable political good and the societies that last will centre opacity and censorship. We would argue back of course. The knock down objection remains that until substantive claims are added about the shape of the Russian project, the proposal is too vague for any purpose.
The simple rebuttal to this man is "when people get killed and their lives ruined, I don't give a shit what your mental onanism about world ideologies is."
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy isn't the shape of this "Russian project" rather clear: imperial power to the autocrat and his courtiers, succession tbd and whatever "Bread and circuses" we need to waste from our spoils?
@@KitagumaIgen You might have a look at Kotkin’s 4 supports of authoritarian regimes (there’s a lecture he gave at the Cato institute in 2018) for a clearer operational structure, but I think Vlad is making a different point about the ideology or philosophical foundation of Russian imperialism: there isn’t any. Instead there is a mystical quasi-ideology that supports the argument that “might makes right”. Boil down the mysticism and the support for the claim is “because we say so”, and violent action. To use Vlad’s analogy, the mystic serial killer’s philosophical argument is to kill you.
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy Vlad, I am being devil's advocate here, but aren't you arguing that the real problem with the Russian position is the lack of any sense of a 'Pax Romanum'? Couldn't it equally be argued that the West lost any such moral high ground in its dealings with the developing world the moment that the Soviet Union collapsed? Once that threat evaporated it could be argued that institutions such as the IMF and World Bank lost any sort of moral authority and have become entirely dictatorial in their dealings with those nations not within their direct sphere of influence. There is, for me, no moral ambiguity in the situation in Ukraine, but I couldn't it be argued that, for all its vacuity and chauvinistic hubris, the position of someone like Dugin, is no more lacking in substance than the materialistic consumerism of our own culture imposed on the wider world?
_"The proposal is so resolutely abstract, that I can't even dismiss it."_ Lol A succinct &, frankly, rather kind comment! Btw, I've been checking out your videos since I found your channels last week.👍 Thank you for your considered & compassionate perspective.☮️
There is also a more fundamental disagreement I have with the premises. The argument made takes it as a given that at least one hegemon must exist. This is basically an imperial world-view, where a non-imperial option is not foreseen. It quietly accepts that there are influence spheres, and who happens to be inside one has to cower. This is why, say Mearsheimer, Kissinger and others were so quickly to accept Russia's claim and insisted that Ukraine has to submit. It is their idea not only how the world is, but also how it should be. That is a similar misunderstanding to what many Brexiteers have/had on the EU: Who is dominating it, if it is not us? This question is simply not applicable to the way the EU is shaped, and even if we accept that today there is one hegemon, that does not make the imperial world-view automatically desirable or non-challengable.
We have multiple poles of power. America, of course; but the EU, India, Japan, Brazil. The only way Millerman's arguments make sense is to assert that because these are democracies they are colonies of a mythical American Empire.
Of course not, Germany and Japan are occupied countries. But Russia, China, Brazil and India do aspire to have greater international relevance, something that Washington dislikes. Only Westerners are bothered by a multipolar world
It also belies a vision of multi-polarism in which there cannot be fundamental similarities in project goals, and a world simply going back to power competition like that which existed prior to WWII. Just because Japan, Argentina, or even India have "western" democratic characteristics, does not mean they cannot exist as a power pole in supporting a generally common direction. These poles already exist and already ARE checks (perhaps smaller but still existing ) upon US power. They just happen fairly often to see benefits in similar direction.
I think the issue with the covered video isnt that its inhuman, or unpleasant to our ears. Its more that its illogical. It makes claims and paints a world view that doesnt really add up, and ignores a lot of problems with Russia. Or even Chinas position in the world, and perspective on Russia. Its just a bad argument really. But sometimes it can be very difficult to argue against bad ideas, so yeah, its very useful to be able to counter these ideas.
@@gmw3083 It is very interesting how people drenched in propaganda love to tell everyone else they are "sheeple". No, we arent as ignorant as you, so dont pretend you understand us. We know what we are talking about.
Even if you want a multipolar world (the desirability of which is a discussion onto itself), it's absurd to give zero consideration to the characteristics of the potential powers. What does Putin's Russia have to offer the world except naked aggression, rust and an extremely tenuous adherence to democratic principles? Perhaps it would be better if it were not in a position to challenge the west on an equal footing. Also this guy gives no consideration at all to Ukrainian agency. Apparently they just have to roll over and accept Russian oppression for the sake of the multipolar world.
It’s so weird, these people like this guy, never seem to consider the agency of a country like Ukraine. They just think that the USA completely in all instances, takes it up on themselves to be the aggressor of sort. We’ve been through long wars that were pretty unpopular among the most of the population here. We couldn’t even end them. We fumbled when we left Afghanistan, it was embarrassing and the population in the USA is very war tired. If we wouldn’t think it was with it to protect Ukraine and Europe, the Government wouldn’t our support. People forget that a government needs approval from the people. At least here in the USA. There are no protest against supporting the Ukrainians and we spend a lot of taxpayers money supporting them. Most Americans gladly do this. Not because we hate Russia or are trying to make Ukraine like the USA. We just feel that Ukraine should be Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor, but we still would like Russia just to be Russia. We have no interest in aggravating Russia, we don’t want to change Russia. But at the same time, if Ukraine needs our help from an aggressor who is threatening nukes, of course we are going to help them.
Every time I listen to one of your talks, I get the same feeling I had when talking to my history/sociology professor (Dr. Rosales, who has sadly now passed) when I was in college. He always had a way of challenging my own thought process, and I always came away with a better understanding of the situation being discussed, as well as myself. A rare gift and treasure in my world. Thank you!🙂
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy I love the fact that the comments you receive are overwhelmingly useful and appreciative. You are creating an oasis of clear thought, sanity, even kindness.
You're saving my sanity... I'm so glad you decided to become more vocal on TH-cam... Its an emergency... I have always been a stay in my lane person... Thank you for your journalism
they are cowards! And i think (repeat myself...sorry): many see Russia as a counterpoint to their own dissatisfaction with their own government. russia offers a simple answer: "your hate is justified! we believe in you as long as you believe in us". Russian propaganda is like a cult! whose power should not be overestimated, but also not underestimated.
Very well put. Abstracting an axe murderer as just another person is ridiculous. But of course people like Michael are just very dishonest to make such overly abstract assertions and questions seriously about a real observable situation. Just shows the importance of real life facts and detail and the danger of ''ignorant'' abstraction.
There are some “public thinkers” that sometimes get it right, and sometimes get it wrong. Peter Zeihan is a good example of this-a very bright speaker that teases ideas out of the mass of data. But he makes mistakes that I’ve noticed, and probably others that I haven’t. Same with Vlad, no doubt, although Vlad tends to be on much firmer ground and does a better job of supporting his ideas. The point is that a deep thinker like Vlad and a more superficial synthesizer/analyzer like Peter do their best to be honest. This comes through whether you agree with them or not. I’ve never seen this Michael guy before, and I hate to jump to conclusions based on a single video, but . . . he is intellectually dishonest from the start. His basic assumptions are based not on reality, but on false narratives upon which he feeds and propagates. It’s not just that he’s talking in abstractions, but his abstractions are divorced from reality, and he knows it.
He is not dishonest from what I am seeing, he is stupid and assumes an additional option of Russia as a power is making the world a better place, when we can all see very clearly it isn’t
@@MarcosElMalo2 Mostly I agree. I wouldn't' call Peter's analysis superficial though (perhaps broad and thus not as focused)... just incomplete without additional analysis like that which Vlad brings. (And I consider Vlad's incomplete - though vital -without analysis like Peter brings) etc..
@@MarcosElMalo2 But I doubt he knows it. The internet has given a platform to a raft of pseudo-intellectuals exercising their "First Amendment right of free speech". They have an "opinion," and a "right" to their "opinion," and a "right" to get attention by expressing their "opinion". "Hey -- here's an idea I just got -- let's run with it . . ." No thought involved. And when their "idea" is refuted they dig in their heels.
9:45 Right... advocating situation where USA in 1939-1941 is not supporting Britain and watching how it falls into German hands. Then passively watching how USSR falls into German hands... and then USA standing ALONE against united front of Germany+Japan with all those new territories (human+resources).
Sometimes, depending on your neighbor, the best way to "Love thy neighbor" is to leave them alone, and keep them off your property. My old padre told me this when one of my neighbors was stealing wood off my land. Putler needs to stop stealing toilets and stay off Ukrainian land. Otherwise lead will fly. That' s simple.
If you don't like USA hegemony then you have to propose something better. Totalitarian states like Russian and China aren't. Better just to have USA hegemony.
That is only said by Westerners who hate the simple idea of not living in a world under Western hegemony. In many non-Western countries, China and Russia are the counterweight against the American and European yoke.
I don't why people want a multipolar world (again). Last time we had a series of equally powerful nations competing each other we had TWO massively catastrophic world wars!
Not even a uniquely American thing. If and when Europeans on the hard right use the same phrases, they largely mean the same thing - "the Jews." But yeah, probably more prevalent in the U.S.
The United States is not fighting a war with Russia. The Western Hegemony is not from Military invasion but from building legal structures and institutions that work and create the balances between interest groups that create for a civilization. Russia does not offer a serious option.
NO, Western hegemony is the domain and control of resources and technologies by the Anglo-Saxons, that is why it bothers them so much that third countries create their own technologies (China) or control their own resources (Saudi Arabia, Bolivia etc)
@@alpacacomentadora413 Well, if I held western hegemony to be your definition, I would have a different set of concerns. However, I don't. FIrst, The West - -is not limited to Northern Europe. Spain, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines Singapore share a broad view of law, justice and governance that bind them together. I will give a small example. When I was young I was involved in a business dispute. THe Factory owner from Thailand, bought a manufacturing equipment from Germany that was installed by Japanese Engineers. The equipment did not work. The contracts were all in English; the German Commercial Code, almost identical to the UCC, applied and the dispute was resolved in about 20 minutes. This was the private international law of the west triumphing for the benefit of everyone. It is about workable orders more than their place of origination. I don't think "Western Values" are limited to the west. Same gender tolerance, for instance, I believe was always present in Thailand; South Africa permitted same gender marriages before the UNited States did; religious tolerance is certainly present in much of Latin America; so I do not think that this is just a matter of Anglo Saxon anything.
@@craigshagin5506 Alpaca is intellectually dishonest. I appreciate your argument, but I do not think he/she/they/it are worth expending your effort. Alpaca’s arguments are fatuous and made in bad faith.
"If my grandmother had wheels she would be bicycle" 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks for making me smile after the nonsense the guy was spouting, which is frustrating as so many people buy into a smiliar argument without considering what the result of that would look like. They seem too focused on destroying US power to think about who they are giving that power to. I can't understand why anybody would chose an authoritarian state for the other 'pole' I'm am obviously out of my depth here!
Or like saying "My neighbour is killing the family in the house next to his and taking it over. Now that he speaks for two houses we should really listen to him more at the ratepayers association."
Another related point is that his argument has this unspoken assumption that a multipolar world can only be built on the basis of military force, which is the opposite of true. Any multipolar status quo built purely on force will naturally collapse into either one of them winning and becoming the new hegemon or everyone becoming too dead to care. A multipolar world is only stable when built on the back of economic cooperation and a respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
I do neither want a monopolar world order nor a multipolar word order. I do not want empires not a single one and not several. I want equal rights for any country big or small, according to the Helsinki accords.
Vlad's one of those people that makes me wish I was more intelligent. I usually grasp about half of what he's saying and the rest goes over my head. But at least I'm learning something! Glad I found these channels as most media I consume is empty of any real insight on anything of importance.
You know, if you just forget everything you know about Russia, and strip it of all of its attributes and negative actions to the point that it’s just a featureless blob of metaphysical substance… it’s not so bad
Vlad, It's really, really hard to take Millerman seriously, in any sense. His viewpoint, in fact is not just illogical, it is frightening. When confronted with the assertion that the Soviet Union and the United States were moral equivalents, William F. Buckley responded that if one man pushes an old lady into an oncoming bus and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as men who push old ladies around. In other words, context matters. People who blithely make such monstrous moral equivalences are scary. I'm sort of surprised that you spent the time to take us all through this video together, but on the other hand, I'm glad you did. It's a case in point that there are more people who think (?) like Dugin than we might suspect, and that includes "intellectuals". This Millerman guy needs a big dose of reality. He doesn't understand the difference between persuasion and coercion. An axis of balancing power made up of Russia and China would be a disastrous. Beyond this, his whole proposal is a false dichotomy. Simplistic. Abstract? Yes. To the point that it is utter nonsense. Not even a legitimate mind exercise.
Probably a stupid question: Why don't the 500,000 Russians who fled mobilization, mobilize to take back their country? Iranian school girls are doing it.
Brainwashing, with no way to view an outside world. The russian people i suspect are not allowed to see what happens in Iran. Note prob 80 percent of population live with 3rd world standards. Also note in an authoritarian society, physical domanance dictates who leads and follows. Just my two cents. Im not Vlad
Thanks, Vlad, The best thing that happened to me during this conflict is that I found your channel. You provide a light in a dark time. Thanks, Vlad for an intelligent perspective on all the BS we see at the moment.
I find that consulting a list of logical fallacies is very helpful if one is a person with a strong intuition about fallacious arguments but who might feel intimidated by someone who is very confident and judgemental or who might not be able to put their finger on what, precisely, is wrong with the argument. It can feel a bit like gaslighting, and that is not something that one is generally aware of, either. Understanding how deceit and manipulation occurs by means of fallacious arguments has been helpful to me in the past, and it still is helpful to look at a list and find the particular flavour of manipulation that's being employed within it. I wish all students had to take a critical thinking class. I didn't get to take one until I was in uni, and even then, it was an elective. It should not be an elective in our current age of media.
Everybody has the right to discuss politics and philosophy. Even Eminem. But it is better to look at it from multiple angles, get yourself educated in it and make your decisions after you worked on understanding nuances. What you will not get is to be right because you have a TH-cam channel and you have 40,000 likes. If people will bump into your video, people who don't live in your bubble (like in this case), you will have different opinions. Which is happening now. We are also talking about Russians not being politically active. That is how politically active looks like. Even Eminem has the right to discuss topics. But it will be discussed and nobody can be forced to like it or find it valid and to represent the reality that others experienced too. Democracy is messy.
Ah yes, now I remember, first saw Millerman back in 2014 on TVO's the Agenda (video is on youtube I think). National Post did an article on him when he completed his PhD on Dugin in 2018. I liked the comment on him from one of his doctoral supervisors: “He is enamoured by philosophy. He is not interested in the politics. You could even fault him on that,” Made me chuckle. Thanks Vlad!
Love how calm and rational you are while criticizing even the most outrageous ideas. It's like saying, "What you're saying is morally wrong, but let's leave all that. This is wrong as it is just not going to do what you want it to." Something I find trouble doing myself. I wasn't the biggest fan of philosophy, but this channel looks amazing!
I don't have the patience to delve into the crayon-written bad faith nonsense of poltroons like Millerman here, but I do appreciate you having the energy to do it. Hope you're feeling well these days.
While I hate the phrase "if you are not with us, you are against us", I think there are situations that do not leave a lot of "grey". The Russian aggression is one of these few incidents that I think is quite black and white. Of course, a multipolar world order with different powerhouses is preferable. But these powerhouses have to follow some basic rules of engagement, such as not killing people because they want to grab their country. Once the EU becomes aligned and speaks with one voice, Europe could be an alternative powerhouse towards the US. But countries such as China or Russia are completely off the table when it comes to this question. Their governments and political systems are just the embodiment of suppression, and there is nothing desirable in having a man-slaughtering antipode in existence.
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy I work for Austrian national TV, ORF I'd love to do something with you and Robert Menasse, a virtual panel realist and utopian meet todays historical challenges? Something along those lines....
The US became the current world hegemon by promoting meritocracy in a liberal capitalistic setting. That can't be compared to Russia's and China's old school imperialistic approach. It baffles me that we even have to discuss this.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle. First heard that from Gino D'Acampo and thought it was a mildly poor translation from Italian but tbh it’s actually amazingly on point 😂
There is plenty of selfish people in West as well. And Michael is one of them. Unfortunately what they don't understand is the suffering they cause with their own "innocent" views.
Perfect Vlad, multipolarity is an empty promise without a positive reimagining of the international sphere. I could entertain the notion only if Russia somehow had a highly justified cause with a positive viewpoint FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, not just Russia. Thank you for what you do.
Your analysis is very important and beautifully presented . If you have a murderer living as a neighbour on one side and say a priest on the other side, this isn't a state of balance, where one can simply check the other. You will always have more cause to worry about the murderer. Two murderers wouldn't be any better. The counter balance might be a priest and an atheist. .
Millerman wrote his thesis which included Dugin, and translated him, I saw his interview and seemed to me, like Pygmalion, he had fallen in love with his own creation. Of course, love is blind.
I remember that between my 8 and 18 years of age (corresponding from 1980 to 1990) we where many asking ourself (even as a kid) if the world will end in a nuclear armaggedon. This is what comming with multipolar world. That fear was put aside during 30 years. We dont need it back. Our kid dont need that.
Why is freedom and democracy considered an only American idea when there were systems of government trying to make those concepts happen way before the USA was a thing? In the grand scheme of things, the USA is very young. If one doesn't want freedom and democracy, their enemies are not the Americans. The real enemy of communism is the desires of humans not wanting to be used for shady government schemes which existed before the USA and before the USSR were even introduced to our world. The whole reason ideas of being free which exist deep within human nature are labeled as American is to introduce an enemy with a face to stir masses to action. Only one side of the story is given by scheming wannabe dictators which makes the face of freedom contort into scary things so they can more easily push their people to complacency because the focus is on the "bad guys" outside the country instead of the monsters within.
I did not ask for this video, but this is a video I definitely want to watch after inadvertently stumbling across Millerman's video a few weeks back and having a curt exchange with him. That was even before I realized to what extent he is fan-boying over Dugin. Blood boiled.
Thank you Vlad, you are the only voice on TH-cam that inspires me to comment. To me Micheal seems to be building a position without transparently establishing all of his moral positions first. It is a bit like trying to pitch a tent in the wind without enough tent pegs. Wherever you go with your argument gusts of contradiction are going to blow your structure away.
The argument seems to be: "You've been peacefully married to A for a long time, so, even though B has a history of brutish disregard for the rights of others, he ought to be allowed to dictate the family's fate henceforth. After all, unfairness can be fair in geopolitics."
not too sure why you gave this man airwave space if honest. I would much rather you pre vet vids so we get serious arguments or counter views to consider.
Vlad, this was a very very good one, that will help people a lot. As you only mentioned some (aka exactly the right amount) of the foolishnesses this Michael guy showed in his "arguing", could you, please, do more of this reaction videos?
Dear Prof.Vexler, this was an illuminating lesson for dealing with whataboutism and pseudo-comments. Thank you for pointing out that there are basics of humanity that must not be violated in any case.
I really like your method of reasoning in this video, and in the other videos that I've seen so far. You expose how Michael divorces his abstractions from reality, from the concrete. It's like he's saying "Having two rulers/hegemons is better, in principle, than having just one ruler/hegemon" - This however, is not a principle with a foundation in reality. This principle does not take into account the facts concering the ruler/hegemon, as they could be a complete nutjob. It is a completely arbitrary "principle" and we can tell that if we try to apply it to other times in history. Does Michael also apply this principle to WWII, claiming that the Axis powers should have been left alone because they could've been a global counter-weight to the Anglo-American hegemony? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he did, but I don't think his listeners would be so willing to give nazis the pass.
A big problem I have with the "multipolar world" proponents: They tend to assume that any other power centre must necessarily be opposed to the US in order to count. The EU is a power centre. It's currently allied to the US because in many aspects of geopolitics it's in alignment with the US... but they do have their disagreements, and if the US started really abusing its power, those disagreements will grow and the alignment might break. Apologists for the Russia-China axis, however, find it convenient to discount Europe as being US puppets, so they don't count... largely because the Russian and Chinese viewpoints can't imagine an alliance as close as NATO without one nation being the imperial master of the others because they could never see themselves forming such an alliance unless it was with them as imperial master and the others as their subjects. India is also growing into a power centre. It's not in direct opposition to the US, but as events have shown this year in particular, it's far from being in lockstep with the US or Europe. The Middle Eastern states allied to Saudi Arabia are a power centre. Possibly one in decline as the world weans itself off fossil fuels, depending on how well they manage that transition (the region could probably do well off solar as well...), but again, recent events have shown that while not strictly in opposition to the US, they're certainly not afraid to act counter to American wishes either. There's no reason that a 'multipolar world' has to be arranged in a manner of authoritarianism versus democracy. You could still have a multipolar world composed of democracies that work out their disagreements without it turning into military confrontations. The current conflict is, if anything, concentrating power into poles because centres that might otherwise chart different courses are brought together in opposition to those centres that still believe in the acquisition of territory through force and coercion.
Thank you! It's very helpful to see someone processing with such a controversial stance in such a reasonable manner. Even though I'm strongly inclined to wish Mr. Millerman was on the front line in Ukraine right now, and see if he maintains his current outlook, I know my attitude isn't really productive to the larger conversation.
@Vlad: I'd really love to hear from you about Lukashenko's dilemma now that it seems that Putin is trying to forcefully oblige Belarus to take active part in the war by supplying troups. One side note: I look forward next Wednesday to see what Belarus will vote on the UN assembly in regards of the validity of the shame referendum. What are your anticipated thoughts given that Lukashenko is an old fox?
There were only 4 or 5 onside with Russia at the UN vote about 6 months ago. I expect they will be the same. The concern is if there will be more abstentions.
In favour of recognizing dictactorships the right to decide our future, for the abstract goal of multi-polarization? Strange logic. We had a multi-polar world already: US and USSR. The result was not a more free world: it was only split into two uni-polar worlds with wars at the fringe.
Not your future, but that of its peoples, only the West believes that it can decide the future of the rest of humanity, because it believes that the West = the entire humanity. Nothing further from reality
It should be pointed out that the non-aligned movement arose during the Cold War, meaning that U.S. “hegemony” was even less than the Russian propagandists will admit. You might or might not know about this non-aligned movement. It’s where we got the now corrupted phrase “Third World”, which has become a term of disparagement against non-white regions and nations.
Indeed. Multipolar is not a good in and of itself that dismisses the question of what kind of actors and ideologies might act upon the world via those power splits. Multi-polar also does not dismiss the idea of powers acting in generally a common direction either (as has been the hope of the post WWII project).
It Russia is only offering vicious, venal chaos. It’s like saying a psychotic toddler with a gun is an equable alternative to a sane adult without one.
Wow such an idea. Maybe it was a mistake to defeat Nazi Germany. We would have multipolar world With USA, Nazis, Soviet Union and china. (As for Georgian, being lucky to be attacked by Russia once in a decade, this argument of supporting Russian aggression for bigger peace, sounds so shallow and wrong, that it makes me sad)
My main channel -
th-cam.com/channels/6-3.html...
My casual Chat channel -
th-cam.com/channels/n7XHZiW6EUgSuxItybLLMg.htmlvideos
Michael Millerman video 'Who is ""pro-Russia"? -
th-cam.com/video/o8vGB-TznVY/w-d-xo.html
You can now support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
The main channel link isn't working. Thank you for another great video.
when i click the on the main channle link it states that it dose not exsist, is it this one? th-cam.com/users/VladVexler
What are your thoughts on Johan Galtung?
Thanks Vlad. You should take time to read « Alpaca commentatora » comment because it’s exactly one of the biggest problem we have with some European citizens and with a large part of African and South American peoples. They don’t really care of what is the war or not. They care about being liberated of the hegemony of the western countries. So they support Russia. It’s simple, basic… easy. This question of a « multipolar » World is important. And this could be my question (if I had any doubts) for a Q&A, but more probably a longer and deeper video: Why is not Russia and Poutine a good solution to the troubles in african, south american and other countries? What about the western hegemony in 2022? Yes, these questions were talked about, including in this video. But we get that comment again.
Hi Vlad, and thank you for your analysis as always.
I would just add a request: as a non-native English speaker, I would just advise you, for eventual next reaction videos, not to overlap your comments over the original audio, as it becomes much more difficult (for me at least, but I think it may be true for other non-native speakers as well) to follow either you or the other person's discourse.
Anyway, thank you for all you do, and don't forget to take care of yourself 😊
When someone speaks like that, my mind gets overwhelmed with responses but I can't get the thoughts actually sorted. And then you are there with a calm reasoning, and it's like my 'upstairs room' is cleaned and organized again. I find it a very admirable thing you do, and appreciate you obviously invested alot of time and energy in this skill. Thank you!
My pleasure!
I particularly like the bit about giving the grandmother wheels and then her being a bicycle.
Sofie, I agree with you completely. Vlad is amazing. I don't know how he does it.
@@danielfoster9782 I could be wrong, but I think that "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle" is a translation of an old Yiddish saying (I looked it up once). I've heard it often here in Italy and seem to recall hearing it on TV a couple of times in the U.S., as well.
IMO the overwhelming of your mind is the intention of speakers like Dugin or Micheal. It puts the listener in a confused and emotional state, where he is more susceptible to illogical arguments.
I recognise this is an emotional response, but “multipolar” has become a dog whistle for Kremlin apologist in my mind. I see too many of them on Twitter and this is their favourite word
Only Westerners are against a multipolar world, I guess they miss the old days when they dominated more than half the planet.
“Unipolar + U.S. Hegemony” are another tip off. At best it’s lazy thinking, at worst it’s intellectual dishonesty. U.S. hegemony has been tested and failed. I’m not making an either/or argument. I just wish to point out that much of the USA’s power is anti-hegemonic in nature. It has to build alliances through cooperation, consensus, and mutual interests. Unipolar hegemony is a dishonest myth that just won’t go away.
Correct. Its a dead giveaway for someone engaging in whataboutism.
And the assumption is that Russia has an inherent *right* to be one of the poles in a multipolar world. In all terms other than geographical size, amount of natural resources and number of nuclear weapons, Russia is actually a middling power. Until last February, I believed Russia's preferences and concerns should be given consideration as serious as that given to any middle-sized nation, but I now believe they have forfeited the right to be treated with respect. Russia needs to get over the idea that the world revolves around Russia.
@Allan Mason it would kind of be like Canada demanding the world follow our dictates… oh, wait… our idiot Crime Minstrel actually *does* act like people should take him seriously.
If that dude (Micheal) was a Russian; he'd be walking around in a 'Z' T-shirt but would be the first at the border when national mobilisation is called.
Which dude?
@@MarcosElMalo2 Micheal.
I'm a huge fan of Vlad, I can see the confusion. Perhaps i should of said 'that dude' 👍
You have no idea how glad I am to have found you. Thank you for what you do.
Thank you for finding!
Welcome aboard
@@janvisagie231 🙋🏼♀️
The issue boils down to exactly what you said - "yes, but does the hegemony offer anything positive?". Great analysis, thanks Vlad.
Not only that. Even if more Russian international power would be better, how Russia gets that power matters. The end doesn't justify any all means.
It reminds me of the paradox of tolerance. You can't create a tolerant society if you tolerate intolerance. In the same way, you can't really create a harmonic multipolar world out of imperialist hegemonies that don't believe in multipolarity. As Vlad pointed out, Michael is unfortunately making the irrational jump from the abstract "multipolarity is good" to "adding ANY hegemony to the system will make it better". He's advocating for quantity without regard for quality.
@@Zeckenschwarm Spot on!
@@Zeckenschwarm Also missing is any discussion of the quality of US hegemony and if movement toward multipolarity or toward unipolar consolidation would affect the quality of that hegemony.
An interesting moment was the fall of the Soviet world. Did US hegemony get nicer or crueler on balance?
Incidentally, what some forget in this regard is that the USA and England (and Russia) were the guarantors when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and are only fulfilling their obligation to Ukraine. Perhaps some Americans who speak out against war or interference should be reminded of that! Much respect to you Vlad...
> USA and England (and Russia) were the guarantors when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and are only fulfilling their obligation to Ukraine
Here is the relevant part of corresponding (Budapest) Memorandum (December 5, 1994):
_4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in the event that Ukraine becomes the victim of an act of aggression or the object of a threat of aggression with the use of nuclear weapons._
That is: USA and England and Russia's obligation is only *"to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council to provide assistance to Ukraine"*
Nothing else, unfortunately...
PS: However, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, any Member of the UN has the inherent right to defend it, alone or collectively.
@@alexleibovici4834 If one of the security council is blocking (Russia), which other options you have? Sorry for Ireland that i took out... 🤥🤔
PS: Thx, for the original text... 🤝
(And Russia) I am an American, I do not need to be reminded. You absolutely minimized the commitment that Russia had. They invaded. And no, I do not need any mumbo jumbo history lessons. Boots on the ground, utter destruction and lack of concern for human life. That is your (And Russia)
@@agripparapax3865
> If one of the security council is blocking (Russia), which other options you have?
Oh, but in the Art. 1, 2 and 3 of the same Memorandum they (Russia) promised not to harm Ukraine in any way ! 😁
@@Lora_Lynn l'm not a russian and you're right! But Russia is the Aggressor and blocked anyone petition in UN. Which another option have Ukraine against a security council member like be supported by another one. PS: If you known a lesson than this from WW2!
This argument basically comes down to "As long as you are doing it with the intention to create a multi-polar world, you should totally be allowed to conquer your neighbors."
My god, this was tough to watch.
This Michael fellow seems to be the kind of person that tries to make themselves appear very friendly, laidback, harmless and reasonable, when in fact they're extremely manipulative.
Agreed. Also someone who tries to make themselves seem intelligent, but has no analytical abilities whatsoever. The gaps in thinking he makes are huge 😂
@@wednesday7475 He has analytical capabilities. The problem is that he’s intellectually dishonest and an apologist for thuggery.
Yep, he reminds me of the wannabe-intellectual boyfriend that one's friend/sister/etc brings home against EVERYONE's best judgement.
He stopped short of endorsing Russia, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
From a strictly logical perspective, everything he said is valid.
@@Me-vl6jl Ah, but the point is not necessarily to get you to endorse Russia. This is largely the same mentality that was being encouraged in Russia. The point is to get people to accept, to ponder, and to get hung up on issues like:
"perhaps we, as individuals, shouldn't get involved", "let's not just jump to condemning Russia", "Russia has legitimate concerns", "well, there is a history of fascism", or "above all, we need to prevent any escalation".
And I don't mean considering these as starting points, it's a question of accepting this as an unquestionable, terminal, set of basic positions.
It's a triumph of the American concept of free speech (via the 1st Ammendment) that Mike can say this unmolested. I doubt this would be the case in Russia, China, Iran or any other actor he wishes to giftwrap some degree of hegemony to .
So you support America having global hegemony?
I guess you don't understand why Russia generates sympathy in non-Western countries, none of these nations want Western hegemony
Friend, focus on what he actually said here, that free speech is a good thing that is unavailable under the regimes in the governments just listed.
@@alpacacomentadora413 Why is it a foregone conclusion that they "support American hegemony"?
@@tahwsisiht America are pro self determenation? Okay, Anubis’s they removed the leader of a free Iran and put on the ayatollahs(the reason the country is Islamist now). Both Russia and USA suck
@@alpacacomentadora413 Yeah, this “either/or” thinking reveals you to be intellectually dishonest. Enjoy your free speech, but we see you for what you are, a lying apologist.
"Globalism, meaning a single global hegemon." Michael's statement really makes me scratch my head, because who said that globalism has to be a hegemony? Globalism can just as much be a more democratic version of todays UN or EU, where every single country has democratic vote and not a single country has a veto right or like in the EU where everyone has a veto right when it comes to certain topics. For me the view that we need a hegemon or a multi polar world seems old fashion. I don't think hegemony will ever get us to a peaceful world, because there will always be countries(like Russia today) that will feel forgotten and left out of the sphere of power. The UN has shown that it is possible to live in a more diplomatic world, but of course some of the issues with the UN has also shown that the current structure is not perfect and can be improved.
As a Ukrainian, I’m disgusted with that guy’s argument. How does murdering civilians and bombing civil infrastructure help forming bi-polar world?
Why does this paradigm exist, where there countries compete who is more powerful? Except for authoritarians to satisfy their egos…
We need a world where individuals live their lives and are free to do what they want and co-exist with other individuals.
Not bi-polar is MULTIPOLAR.
The West cannot coexist with other civilizations, its universal values force it to seek conflict and world domination
It’s called Bolshevism
Ukrainian forces murdering civilians and shelling area controlled by Russians as well but this is never mentioned in the Western media (even from 2014)...Yes Russia attacked and occupied those regions we know that but the narrative is that only Russian commit atrocities and crimes...As we know in civil wars there are crimes and atrocities committed from all sides and this is the only true (the difference is who has more arms and power)...There is no morality in the war as we have seen in the war in former Yugoslavia ....
Maybe he is arguing from a parallel universe where Russia didnt invade Ukraine.
And its all just a "battle of the cultures".
@@jonson856 the only culture that has problems with ALL the other cultures of the world is the western one.
What will be the reason?
I could be wrong, but isn't a flaw in Millerman's reasoning, that he assumes putin-the-thing wants a multipolar world? Because I suspect that putin would really prefer being the big shot at the top, with EVERYBODY else below him. I think he very much wants a unipolar world, with him as the czar that rules the planet.
Also, I think Michael is also wrongly assuming putin is in any way a reasonable man.
Just my humble opinion.
A multipolar world is the only thing Russia can aspire to, because it is not strong enough.
Instead China seeks a multipolar world due to its non-universalistic cultural nature, the West instead seeks to dominate the entire world due to its universalist culture.
Putin is a murderous maniac. He wants to be remembered like Peter the Great, but it looks like he'll be remembered as Putin the Little.
Greetings from Prague. Thank you for the work you do. To me, the commented video has one more aspect, reoccurring in public space. People who disagree with the political situation in their respective countries tend to believe, that Russia is fighting their fight too. No, it is not. We should prevent ourselves from reducing Ukraine and its people to a subject in arguing conflicts/problems that predate this war.
Same thing with China.
Those disillusioned with the West are just as susceptible to authoritarian propaganda as they are to homegrown fascist propaganda.
THINK FOR YOURSELVES, PEOPLE. No country, no government has all the answers, nor should every one of them get the same type of respect and legitimacy. For example: the terrorist regime that is the Islamic republic
Smart comment 👏👏👏
Russia is not fighting on anyone else's behalf.
Individuals tend to think that if Putin is against their government, he must be pro-THEM 🤡
Dugin really is a strange little man. Having listened to quite a few of his speeches/debates, he always comes back to the idea of Russia being "different" than or having some sort of "special" place in the world. He mostly justifies this with very vague generalities, like Russian mysticism and as some sort of counter-balance to the "decadent" or degenerate" West, in order to justify Russian authoritarianism. When pressed on what specifically Russia is different or "better" on than the West, you get a lot of word salad from Dugin, with some reference to repressing rights of minority (such as gays). He comes off as an apologist for the authoritarian Russian regime, without being able to explain what makes the system preferable to a Western style democracy.
Russians "-We need more than One center of power!"
China: "-I'm empty space for you?!"
Exactly, I find the idea that we don’t already have a multipolar world a weird denial of reality. China may not be an absolute peer to the USA but it has an undeniable political and economic gravity.
This line of thought is actually quite prevalent in India, and somewhat common in South America. The prospect of a victory of Russia and thus a defeat of North america and EU would shake up the current hegemonic world order, providing oportunities for surging countries that feel somewhat opresed by the aparent superiority of the stablishment. This is in no small part because of the decades of interventionism by the USA during the cold war, and the colonialism of Europe before that. They pay little heed to the idea that a new world order could actually be worse. I will say it here as I have said before: Whatever power is set to compete or surpass the West must be better economically, politically and morally. People see the failings of the west, and think of what can be done better, which is plenty and an excelent thought to have, but its hard to understand the amount of bad they could be doing. For that you can easily look at China and Russia. I have more faith on the USA and Europe improving on their mistakes than on China or Russia becoming the new pole of the world.
As soon as people from Asia, Africa and South America start to migrate to China and Russia instead of the USA or Europe I will start to take this seriously. We could start with Hungary providing shelter for the Russians fleeing mobilization.
Are you saying that people in India, South America and Africa are waiting to be under the dominance of Russia, but only if Russia wins a war over its own ex-republic in a continent that they don't even know anything about?
What is a "prospect of a victory" over what? They are just destroying a country and winning exactly NOTHING, apart from some land. They want Kiev to put their government there and they still didn't get it after one year.
What if Russia loses? Are India, South America and Africa be deluded and call Russia a loser they don't want to be under?
Are human beings so retrograde in all respects?
I agree that any dominant power should be improved compared to US and Europe for a better world. Russia isn't that improvement.
Love you Vlad,an intellectual powerhouse!
🌻
Ah, Vlad, TH-cam recommended Millerman's video to me after watching one of yours, got about 2 minutes in before I had to take a break, as it was so aggravating. It was this very video. Feel so much better watching it with you.
What annoyed me was taking a reasonable premise to an unreasonable conclusion. Do we support Iran, North Korea, etc. because they challenge or "stand up to the US"? How about Hitler standing up to British and French Imperialism (which was still a thing then)?
I remember in the late 70s, Stalinists would ask me: "What's wrong with the Poles, why don't they let the Russians make of Poland a better and more just society?"
My response then (unfortunately, an exaggerated response, triggered by my anger), was that this showed the same depth of analysis as someone asking "What's wrong with the Jews in 1930s Germany, don't they want the trains to run on time?"
A fairer response would be "What's wrong with the Poles in the Polish People's Republic, don't they want all their trains to break down and always be late"?
What killed all support for the PZPR was not that it represented evil, it was that there was NOTHING good that it could even pretend to represent. It was only there because there was no choice.
Millerman is not worth much attention. His argument here is worth confronting, only because others use it as well.
Still, glad you did this, as it let me confront and crystallize my criticism, without posting on his channel, where it would probably do less good, and might have taken me down a rabbit hole of bickering comments.
Bottom line: Yes, alternatives are good. An alternative must offer something. Some things are not alternatives, they are an obstacle to the very possibility of an alternative.
Id argue that his premise is fatuous and not tethered to reality, but to a false narrative that can be factually disproven.
The U.S. has tested its “hegemonic power” twice this century with boots on the ground and failed both times. Therefore, it is much less hegemonically powerful than the Russian propagandists would like you to believe.
LOVED IT! 😚 Vlad, more of these reaction videos! 🤩
Just one thing. If you don't talk over the other person while they are speaking it will be easier to hear every word you AND they say. Apart from that; brilliant!
Love, thank you and sorry Stella!
Yes. Better to pause, but it did make me laugh.
@@George-2115 Same here. 😁
@@George-2115 And same here.
Don't you find it 'funny' that this way of thinking almost always comes from people in western countries and rarely from the countries in Central Europe that were a part of 'The Russian Empire' until 1989?
Just a thought, but... If everyone you know suddenly ran away from their neighbor and bought themselves a bunch of guns in case he comes back, wouldn't that be a clue about the guy? That maybe... just maybe, there was something very wrong with him?
I honestly don't get it. Over here, in Poland, even the most anti-American people would NEVER want to live under the 'Russia Hegemony' again. And yet, more and more people in the West seem to see their civilization as evil and Russia (and China) as some counterweight and/or savior. It's depressing 😑.
Extreme polarization in (geo)politics does not equal balance in the sense of keeping the peace, quite the opposite in my opinion.
Exactly. Only a person with prison mentality mixes respect with fear, admiration with deference. Those kind of people rule in russia now. Only a fool would mix russian imperialism with any meaninful substance. Mr Michael would do better trying to change his country instead of drawing new borders on the world map.
That kind of person rules in every government. That kind of conflation of respect and fear being ubiquitous is what makes laws possible.
@@ShankarSivarajan luckily, you are wrong.
@@sailawayteam Where do you imagine one can defy the government without it retaliating?
@@ShankarSivarajan And makes protections -- checks and balances -- in the law imperative.
@@ShankarSivarajan US law includes both penalties and protections. The exercise by the individual of rights is limited by the right of others' not being violated, and the greater good of public health and safety not being endangered.
In the US the gov't is by definition rule of law. You can defy the right of free speech by refusing to speak. There will be no "retaliation" for making that decision. Or you can say just about anything without "retaliation" -- i.e., enforcement of the rule of law -- so long as it doesn't cause or encourage endangering of public health and safety, or the health and safety of another individual.
In short: it isn't black-and-white as you misunderstand it. The freedoms one enjoys is protected in written law -- not antithetical to the rule of law.
But, of course, you envision a perfect human in a perfect society where laws and gov't and law enforcement aren't necessary. But that isn't going to ever happen any time soon.
I am no cheerleader for either globalisation, or the dominance of Western hegemony, and I do not conflate freedom of speech with democracy, but...
The simplest rebuttal to this man is to pose the question 'assuming that he were in Russia and posing the same question in reverse would he be free to publish his thoughts in the same way?'
Good question, but it doesn't settle it. Dugin wouldn't deny that. The argument could be made that freedom of speech isn't a sustainable political good and the societies that last will centre opacity and censorship. We would argue back of course.
The knock down objection remains that until substantive claims are added about the shape of the Russian project, the proposal is too vague for any purpose.
The simple rebuttal to this man is "when people get killed and their lives ruined, I don't give a shit what your mental onanism about world ideologies is."
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy isn't the shape of this "Russian project" rather clear: imperial power to the autocrat and his courtiers, succession tbd and whatever "Bread and circuses" we need to waste from our spoils?
@@KitagumaIgen You might have a look at Kotkin’s 4 supports of authoritarian regimes (there’s a lecture he gave at the Cato institute in 2018) for a clearer operational structure, but I think Vlad is making a different point about the ideology or philosophical foundation of Russian imperialism: there isn’t any. Instead there is a mystical quasi-ideology that supports the argument that “might makes right”. Boil down the mysticism and the support for the claim is “because we say so”, and violent action. To use Vlad’s analogy, the mystic serial killer’s philosophical argument is to kill you.
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy
Vlad, I am being devil's advocate here, but aren't you arguing that the real problem with the Russian position is the lack of any sense of a 'Pax Romanum'?
Couldn't it equally be argued that the West lost any such moral high ground in its dealings with the developing world the moment that the Soviet Union collapsed?
Once that threat evaporated it could be argued that institutions such as the IMF and World Bank lost any sort of moral authority and have become entirely dictatorial in their dealings with those nations not within their direct sphere of influence.
There is, for me, no moral ambiguity in the situation in Ukraine, but I couldn't it be argued that, for all its vacuity and chauvinistic hubris, the position of someone like Dugin, is no more lacking in substance than the materialistic consumerism of our own culture imposed on the wider world?
There isn't a single hegemon anyway. But if there is, it isn't a state - it is capitalism in all forms, from liberal democratic to the tyranical.
managed from london and new york, in other words the Anglo-Saxon hegemony.
someone was taking notes from Putins speech
@@Riwecrew No
_"The proposal is so resolutely abstract, that I can't even dismiss it."_ Lol A succinct &, frankly, rather kind comment! Btw, I've been checking out your videos since I found your channels last week.👍 Thank you for your considered & compassionate perspective.☮️
There is also a more fundamental disagreement I have with the premises. The argument made takes it as a given that at least one hegemon must exist. This is basically an imperial world-view, where a non-imperial option is not foreseen. It quietly accepts that there are influence spheres, and who happens to be inside one has to cower. This is why, say Mearsheimer, Kissinger and others were so quickly to accept Russia's claim and insisted that Ukraine has to submit. It is their idea not only how the world is, but also how it should be.
That is a similar misunderstanding to what many Brexiteers have/had on the EU: Who is dominating it, if it is not us? This question is simply not applicable to the way the EU is shaped, and even if we accept that today there is one hegemon, that does not make the imperial world-view automatically desirable or non-challengable.
As an American, I love that fact that he has the right to say something so ignorant and stupid without being arrested.
We have multiple poles of power. America, of course; but the EU, India, Japan, Brazil. The only way Millerman's arguments make sense is to assert that because these are democracies they are colonies of a mythical American Empire.
Of course not, Germany and Japan are occupied countries. But Russia, China, Brazil and India do aspire to have greater international relevance, something that Washington dislikes.
Only Westerners are bothered by a multipolar world
It also belies a vision of multi-polarism in which there cannot be fundamental similarities in project goals, and a world simply going back to power competition like that which existed prior to WWII. Just because Japan, Argentina, or even India have "western" democratic characteristics, does not mean they cannot exist as a power pole in supporting a generally common direction. These poles already exist and already ARE checks (perhaps smaller but still existing ) upon US power. They just happen fairly often to see benefits in similar direction.
@@ferrariguy8278 AMERICAN INTERESTS ARE NOT THE INTERESTS OF THE WORLD
Thanks, Vlad, for making us listen to unpalatable views. It does help to reflect and challenge our own ideas.
I think the issue with the covered video isnt that its inhuman, or unpleasant to our ears. Its more that its illogical. It makes claims and paints a world view that doesnt really add up, and ignores a lot of problems with Russia. Or even Chinas position in the world, and perspective on Russia.
Its just a bad argument really. But sometimes it can be very difficult to argue against bad ideas, so yeah, its very useful to be able to counter these ideas.
Reality is unpalatable to you people. Sheesh....
@@gmw3083 It is very interesting how people drenched in propaganda love to tell everyone else they are "sheeple".
No, we arent as ignorant as you, so dont pretend you understand us. We know what we are talking about.
Even if you want a multipolar world (the desirability of which is a discussion onto itself), it's absurd to give zero consideration to the characteristics of the potential powers. What does Putin's Russia have to offer the world except naked aggression, rust and an extremely tenuous adherence to democratic principles? Perhaps it would be better if it were not in a position to challenge the west on an equal footing.
Also this guy gives no consideration at all to Ukrainian agency. Apparently they just have to roll over and accept Russian oppression for the sake of the multipolar world.
Only Westerners are against a multipolar world
It’s so weird, these people like this guy, never seem to consider the agency of a country like Ukraine. They just think that the USA completely in all instances, takes it up on themselves to be the aggressor of sort. We’ve been through long wars that were pretty unpopular among the most of the population here. We couldn’t even end them. We fumbled when we left Afghanistan, it was embarrassing and the population in the USA is very war tired. If we wouldn’t think it was with it to protect Ukraine and Europe, the Government wouldn’t our support. People forget that a government needs approval from the people. At least here in the USA. There are no protest against supporting the Ukrainians and we spend a lot of taxpayers money supporting them. Most Americans gladly do this. Not because we hate Russia or are trying to make Ukraine like the USA. We just feel that Ukraine should be Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor, but we still would like Russia just to be Russia. We have no interest in aggravating Russia, we don’t want to change Russia. But at the same time, if Ukraine needs our help from an aggressor who is threatening nukes, of course we are going to help them.
America offers good life for their citizens but not for developing countries who served as cows to USA to milk them until they are dead....
Every time I listen to one of your talks, I get the same feeling I had when talking to my history/sociology professor (Dr. Rosales, who has sadly now passed) when I was in college. He always had a way of challenging my own thought process, and I always came away with a better understanding of the situation being discussed, as well as myself. A rare gift and treasure in my world. Thank you!🙂
A student of Socrates.
An excellent BSer
It is interesting to see how Sadism disguises itself as intellectual discourse
All the cruelty of Foucault with zero insights and twice the calories.
I read that as Saddamism.
Same thing I guess.
You're so wonderful Vlad. I pounce on every update and hang on every word. Thank you for all you do to bring clarity in this very foggy world
That's so so lovely thank you!
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy I love the fact that the comments you receive are overwhelmingly useful and appreciative. You are creating an oasis of clear thought, sanity, even kindness.
@@George-2115 its a party for she pull... yay
You're saving my sanity... I'm so glad you decided to become more vocal on TH-cam... Its an emergency... I have always been a stay in my lane person... Thank you for your journalism
Very well disassembled Vlad, I love your process of thinking✌️
2 degrees too rude but otherwise OK!
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy you're to modest vlad, 3 degrees 🙂
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy I know, that's not your measure, but compared to how rude Michael was, you were almost tender.
@@afarjumri Vlad has a tenderness about him that makes him stand above almost all the commentators I hear on You Tube. He has many great gifts.
@@timgoode3342 True.
I continue to appreciate how well you articulate your thinking! So well reasoned. 👌
Anyone who is pro Russia should have to go live in Russia for two years. I imagine that may change their opinion of Russia.
they are cowards! And i think (repeat myself...sorry):
many see Russia as a counterpoint to their own dissatisfaction with their own government. russia offers a simple answer: "your hate is justified! we believe in you as long as you believe in us". Russian propaganda is like a cult! whose power should not be overestimated, but also not underestimated.
If they or a loved one were pressganged to go and die in a pointless war, tIhat would probably do it too.
I support Russia for its counterweight to American hegemony.
“As an ordinary citizen” should be part of your proposition. I’m sure that Tucker Carlson or Michael Millerman would love it.
please do go live in the backwater towns of russia.
Very well put. Abstracting an axe murderer as just another person is ridiculous.
But of course people like Michael are just very dishonest to make such overly abstract assertions and questions seriously about a real observable situation.
Just shows the importance of real life facts and detail and the danger of ''ignorant'' abstraction.
There are some “public thinkers” that sometimes get it right, and sometimes get it wrong. Peter Zeihan is a good example of this-a very bright speaker that teases ideas out of the mass of data. But he makes mistakes that I’ve noticed, and probably others that I haven’t. Same with Vlad, no doubt, although Vlad tends to be on much firmer ground and does a better job of supporting his ideas. The point is that a deep thinker like Vlad and a more superficial synthesizer/analyzer like Peter do their best to be honest. This comes through whether you agree with them or not.
I’ve never seen this Michael guy before, and I hate to jump to conclusions based on a single video, but . . . he is intellectually dishonest from the start. His basic assumptions are based not on reality, but on false narratives upon which he feeds and propagates. It’s not just that he’s talking in abstractions, but his abstractions are divorced from reality, and he knows it.
I don't know if it's dishonesty or a simple lack of principles--the two can appear the same
He is not dishonest from what I am seeing, he is stupid and assumes an additional option of Russia as a power is making the world a better place, when we can all see very clearly it isn’t
@@MarcosElMalo2 Mostly I agree. I wouldn't' call Peter's analysis superficial though (perhaps broad and thus not as focused)... just incomplete without additional analysis like that which Vlad brings. (And I consider Vlad's incomplete - though vital -without analysis like Peter brings) etc..
@@MarcosElMalo2 But I doubt he knows it. The internet has given a platform to a raft of pseudo-intellectuals exercising their "First Amendment right of free speech". They have an "opinion," and a "right" to their "opinion," and a "right" to get attention by expressing their "opinion".
"Hey -- here's an idea I just got -- let's run with it . . ." No thought involved. And when their "idea" is refuted they dig in their heels.
9:45 Right... advocating situation where USA in 1939-1941 is not supporting Britain and watching how it falls into German hands. Then passively watching how USSR falls into German hands... and then USA standing ALONE against united front of Germany+Japan with all those new territories (human+resources).
Sometimes, depending on your neighbor, the best way to "Love thy neighbor" is to leave them alone, and keep them off your property. My old padre told me this when one of my neighbors was stealing wood off my land. Putler needs to stop stealing toilets and stay off Ukrainian land. Otherwise lead will fly. That' s simple.
If you don't like USA hegemony then you have to propose something better. Totalitarian states like Russian and China aren't. Better just to have USA hegemony.
That is only said by Westerners who hate the simple idea of not living in a world under Western hegemony.
In many non-Western countries, China and Russia are the counterweight against the American and European yoke.
I don't why people want a multipolar world (again). Last time we had a series of equally powerful nations competing each other we had TWO massively catastrophic world wars!
When Americans used the terms “Globalist”, “Globalism”, they are also sending out general anti-Semitic dog whistles.
Not even a uniquely American thing. If and when Europeans on the hard right use the same phrases, they largely mean the same thing - "the Jews." But yeah, probably more prevalent in the U.S.
@@chad3232132 for the record, some of the most ardent anti-globalists in Europe are hard left, who sees it as a tool for exploitation and capitalism.
@@chad3232132 Our globalists use space lasers to start forest fires. Europe can’t top that. America wins again! 🇺🇸
The United States is not fighting a war with Russia. The Western Hegemony is not from
Military invasion but from building legal structures and institutions that work and create the balances between interest groups that create for a civilization. Russia does not offer a serious option.
NO, Western hegemony is the domain and control of resources and technologies by the Anglo-Saxons, that is why it bothers them so much that third countries create their own technologies (China) or control their own resources (Saudi Arabia, Bolivia etc)
@@alpacacomentadora413 Well, if I held western hegemony to be your definition, I would have a different set of concerns. However, I don't. FIrst, The West - -is not limited to Northern Europe. Spain, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines Singapore share a broad view of law, justice and governance that bind them together. I will give a small example. When I was young I was involved in a business dispute. THe Factory owner from Thailand, bought a manufacturing equipment from Germany that was installed by Japanese Engineers. The equipment did not work. The contracts were all in English; the German Commercial Code, almost identical to the UCC, applied and the dispute was resolved in about 20 minutes. This was the private international law of the west triumphing for the benefit of everyone. It is about workable orders more than their place of origination. I don't think "Western Values" are limited to the west. Same gender tolerance, for instance, I believe was always present in Thailand; South Africa permitted same gender marriages before the UNited States did; religious tolerance is certainly present in much of Latin America; so I do not think that this is just a matter of Anglo Saxon anything.
@@craigshagin5506 Alpaca is intellectually dishonest. I appreciate your argument, but I do not think he/she/they/it are worth expending your effort. Alpaca’s arguments are fatuous and made in bad faith.
"If my grandmother had wheels she would be bicycle" 🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for making me smile after the nonsense the guy was spouting, which is frustrating as so many people buy into a smiliar argument without considering what the result of that would look like. They seem too focused on destroying US power to think about who they are giving that power to. I can't understand why anybody would chose an authoritarian state for the other 'pole' I'm am obviously out of my depth here!
Or like saying "My neighbour is killing the family in the house next to his and taking it over. Now that he speaks for two houses we should really listen to him more at the ratepayers association."
Another related point is that his argument has this unspoken assumption that a multipolar world can only be built on the basis of military force, which is the opposite of true. Any multipolar status quo built purely on force will naturally collapse into either one of them winning and becoming the new hegemon or everyone becoming too dead to care. A multipolar world is only stable when built on the back of economic cooperation and a respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Yes but this doesn't apply to USA politics...they want to be the bosses of the world
My internal daily Vlad clock just told me to refresh my YT.
I really appreciate being able to listen to your analysis and thoughts on these other views.
I do neither want a monopolar world order nor a multipolar word order.
I do not want empires not a single one and not several.
I want equal rights for any country big or small, according to the Helsinki accords.
Vlad's one of those people that makes me wish I was more intelligent. I usually grasp about half of what he's saying and the rest goes over my head.
But at least I'm learning something! Glad I found these channels as most media I consume is empty of any real insight on anything of importance.
You know, if you just forget everything you know about Russia, and strip it of all of its attributes and negative actions to the point that it’s just a featureless blob of metaphysical substance… it’s not so bad
🤔
Vlad, It's really, really hard to take Millerman seriously, in any sense. His viewpoint, in fact is not just illogical, it is frightening.
When confronted with the assertion that the Soviet Union and the United States were moral equivalents, William F. Buckley responded that if one man pushes an old lady into an oncoming bus and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as men who push old ladies around. In other words, context matters.
People who blithely make such monstrous moral equivalences are scary. I'm sort of surprised that you spent the time to take us all through this video together, but on the other hand, I'm glad you did. It's a case in point that there are more people who think (?) like Dugin than we might suspect, and that includes "intellectuals". This Millerman guy needs a big dose of reality. He doesn't understand the difference between persuasion and coercion. An axis of balancing power made up of Russia and China would be a disastrous.
Beyond this, his whole proposal is a false dichotomy. Simplistic. Abstract? Yes. To the point that it is utter nonsense. Not even a legitimate mind exercise.
I guess he got it, as he has already seen Vlads response. 🙋🏼♀️, Julia
for us germans its more like finding out your drinking buddy is a murderer.
Probably a stupid question: Why don't the 500,000 Russians who fled mobilization, mobilize to take back their country? Iranian school girls are doing it.
Brainwashing, with no way to view an outside world. The russian people i suspect are not allowed to see what happens in Iran. Note prob 80 percent of population live with 3rd world standards. Also note in an authoritarian society, physical domanance dictates who leads and follows. Just my two cents. Im not Vlad
Thanks, Vlad, The best thing that happened to me during this conflict is that I found your channel. You provide a light in a dark time. Thanks, Vlad for an intelligent perspective on all the BS we see at the moment.
I find that consulting a list of logical fallacies is very helpful if one is a person with a strong intuition about fallacious arguments but who might feel intimidated by someone who is very confident and judgemental or who might not be able to put their finger on what, precisely, is wrong with the argument.
It can feel a bit like gaslighting, and that is not something that one is generally aware of, either. Understanding how deceit and manipulation occurs by means of fallacious arguments has been helpful to me in the past, and it still is helpful to look at a list and find the particular flavour of manipulation that's being employed within it.
I wish all students had to take a critical thinking class. I didn't get to take one until I was in uni, and even then, it was an elective. It should not be an elective in our current age of media.
Eminem discussing politics and philosophy - awesome
He remained seated😉
Everybody has the right to discuss politics and philosophy. Even Eminem. But it is better to look at it from multiple angles, get yourself educated in it and make your decisions after you worked on understanding nuances. What you will not get is to be right because you have a TH-cam channel and you have 40,000 likes. If people will bump into your video, people who don't live in your bubble (like in this case), you will have different opinions. Which is happening now.
We are also talking about Russians not being politically active. That is how politically active looks like. Even Eminem has the right to discuss topics. But it will be discussed and nobody can be forced to like it or find it valid and to represent the reality that others experienced too. Democracy is messy.
Is that you, Stan?
Great stuff Vlad... thanks. You got him.
I wasn't trying to get Michael, but I was pretty mean about the vagueness of the proposal.
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy meanness is good for the channel. You can be nice again when you reach 1M ;)
Ah yes, now I remember, first saw Millerman back in 2014 on TVO's the Agenda (video is on youtube I think). National Post did an article on him when he completed his PhD on Dugin in 2018. I liked the comment on him from one of his doctoral supervisors: “He is enamoured by philosophy. He is not interested in the politics. You could even fault him on that,” Made me chuckle. Thanks Vlad!
Love how calm and rational you are while criticizing even the most outrageous ideas. It's like saying, "What you're saying is morally wrong, but let's leave all that. This is wrong as it is just not going to do what you want it to." Something I find trouble doing myself.
I wasn't the biggest fan of philosophy, but this channel looks amazing!
Thank you Vlad for the notice. My circle is wide open. But I’ve probably heard it all before 😉
You have such a brilliant mind, loving your videos on geopolitics
I would ask if he considers dictatorships to be legitimate forms of government.
If he says yes, then he is immediately dismissed as a fool.
I don't have the patience to delve into the crayon-written bad faith nonsense of poltroons like Millerman here, but I do appreciate you having the energy to do it. Hope you're feeling well these days.
While I hate the phrase "if you are not with us, you are against us", I think there are situations that do not leave a lot of "grey". The Russian aggression is one of these few incidents that I think is quite black and white. Of course, a multipolar world order with different powerhouses is preferable. But these powerhouses have to follow some basic rules of engagement, such as not killing people because they want to grab their country. Once the EU becomes aligned and speaks with one voice, Europe could be an alternative powerhouse towards the US. But countries such as China or Russia are completely off the table when it comes to this question. Their governments and political systems are just the embodiment of suppression, and there is nothing desirable in having a man-slaughtering antipode in existence.
Good evening from Vienna, well let's have a look at this....
Good evening!
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy I work for Austrian national TV, ORF
I'd love to do something with you and Robert Menasse, a virtual panel realist and utopian meet todays historical challenges?
Something along those lines....
The US became the current world hegemon by promoting meritocracy in a liberal capitalistic setting. That can't be compared to Russia's and China's old school imperialistic approach. It baffles me that we even have to discuss this.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle. First heard that from Gino D'Acampo and thought it was a mildly poor translation from Italian but tbh it’s actually amazingly on point 😂
She'd likely be a motorist.
Haha in French we say if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle 😂
@@kettelbe Wouldn’t ever have guessed the French or anyone really would have a more inappropriate saying than the Italians 🤣
:)
In Russian there's an inappropriate one aswell: if a grandma had a dick, she'd be a grandpa
Found binged. You so well-analyze and debunk, thank you, Subscribed Vlad.
There is plenty of selfish people in West as well. And Michael is one of them. Unfortunately what they don't understand is the suffering they cause with their own "innocent" views.
Perfect Vlad, multipolarity is an empty promise without a positive reimagining of the international sphere. I could entertain the notion only if Russia somehow had a highly justified cause with a positive viewpoint FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, not just Russia. Thank you for what you do.
Your analysis is very important and beautifully presented . If you have a murderer living as a neighbour on one side and say a priest on the other side, this isn't a state of balance, where one can simply check the other. You will always have more cause to worry about the murderer. Two murderers wouldn't be any better. The counter balance might be a priest and an atheist. .
Millerman wrote his thesis which included Dugin, and translated him, I saw his interview and seemed to me, like Pygmalion, he had fallen in love with his own creation. Of course, love is blind.
This is the most beautiful, gentle, calm evisceration I have ever witnessed.
Thank you so much, Vlad.
I remember that between my 8 and 18 years of age (corresponding from 1980 to 1990) we where many asking ourself (even as a kid) if the world will end in a nuclear armaggedon. This is what comming with multipolar world. That fear was put aside during 30 years. We dont need it back. Our kid dont need that.
Why is freedom and democracy considered an only American idea when there were systems of government trying to make those concepts happen way before the USA was a thing? In the grand scheme of things, the USA is very young. If one doesn't want freedom and democracy, their enemies are not the Americans. The real enemy of communism is the desires of humans not wanting to be used for shady government schemes which existed before the USA and before the USSR were even introduced to our world. The whole reason ideas of being free which exist deep within human nature are labeled as American is to introduce an enemy with a face to stir masses to action. Only one side of the story is given by scheming wannabe dictators which makes the face of freedom contort into scary things so they can more easily push their people to complacency because the focus is on the "bad guys" outside the country instead of the monsters within.
I did not ask for this video, but this is a video I definitely want to watch after inadvertently stumbling across Millerman's video a few weeks back and having a curt exchange with him. That was even before I realized to what extent he is fan-boying over Dugin. Blood boiled.
Vlad, your knowledge, insights, and wisdom are all greatly appreciated!
My neighbour is an arsonist who keeps setting fire to our apartments.
You can solve that via multipolarity!
Fire is fundamentally important to humanity, so basic it’s not even enumerated as a right. What sort of Frankenstein’s Monster is afraid of fire?
This was amazing! Thank you for that. I really appreciate your analyses and viewpoints on everything going on.
Thank you Vlad, you are the only voice on TH-cam that inspires me to comment.
To me Micheal seems to be building a position without transparently establishing all of his moral positions first. It is a bit like trying to pitch a tent in the wind without enough tent pegs. Wherever you go with your argument gusts of contradiction are going to blow your structure away.
The argument seems to be: "You've been peacefully married to A for a long time, so, even though B has a history of brutish disregard for the rights of others, he ought to be allowed to dictate the family's fate henceforth. After all, unfairness can be fair in geopolitics."
not too sure why you gave this man airwave space if honest. I would much rather you pre vet vids so we get serious arguments or counter views to consider.
I Very much enjoy the way you explain things and the way you deliver your ideas! Thank you Vlad! You are awesome ❤
Vlad, this was a very very good one, that will help people a lot. As you only mentioned some (aka exactly the right amount) of the foolishnesses this Michael guy showed in his "arguing", could you, please, do more of this reaction videos?
Yes I will do more Julia! I get requests but am so slow to catch with them!
@@VladVexlerPhilosophy Yes, go slowly!!! ❤ I just wanted to say that this a very good format.
Dear Prof.Vexler, this was an illuminating lesson for dealing with whataboutism and pseudo-comments. Thank you for pointing out that there are basics of humanity that must not be violated in any case.
I really like your method of reasoning in this video, and in the other videos that I've seen so far. You expose how Michael divorces his abstractions from reality, from the concrete. It's like he's saying "Having two rulers/hegemons is better, in principle, than having just one ruler/hegemon" - This however, is not a principle with a foundation in reality. This principle does not take into account the facts concering the ruler/hegemon, as they could be a complete nutjob. It is a completely arbitrary "principle" and we can tell that if we try to apply it to other times in history. Does Michael also apply this principle to WWII, claiming that the Axis powers should have been left alone because they could've been a global counter-weight to the Anglo-American hegemony? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he did, but I don't think his listeners would be so willing to give nazis the pass.
A big problem I have with the "multipolar world" proponents:
They tend to assume that any other power centre must necessarily be opposed to the US in order to count.
The EU is a power centre. It's currently allied to the US because in many aspects of geopolitics it's in alignment with the US... but they do have their disagreements, and if the US started really abusing its power, those disagreements will grow and the alignment might break. Apologists for the Russia-China axis, however, find it convenient to discount Europe as being US puppets, so they don't count... largely because the Russian and Chinese viewpoints can't imagine an alliance as close as NATO without one nation being the imperial master of the others because they could never see themselves forming such an alliance unless it was with them as imperial master and the others as their subjects.
India is also growing into a power centre. It's not in direct opposition to the US, but as events have shown this year in particular, it's far from being in lockstep with the US or Europe.
The Middle Eastern states allied to Saudi Arabia are a power centre. Possibly one in decline as the world weans itself off fossil fuels, depending on how well they manage that transition (the region could probably do well off solar as well...), but again, recent events have shown that while not strictly in opposition to the US, they're certainly not afraid to act counter to American wishes either.
There's no reason that a 'multipolar world' has to be arranged in a manner of authoritarianism versus democracy. You could still have a multipolar world composed of democracies that work out their disagreements without it turning into military confrontations. The current conflict is, if anything, concentrating power into poles because centres that might otherwise chart different courses are brought together in opposition to those centres that still believe in the acquisition of territory through force and coercion.
Thank you! It's very helpful to see someone processing with such a controversial stance in such a reasonable manner. Even though I'm strongly inclined to wish Mr. Millerman was on the front line in Ukraine right now, and see if he maintains his current outlook, I know my attitude isn't really productive to the larger conversation.
I watched one video from Alexander Mercouris. Im pretty sure i developed a brain cancer during the video
@Vlad: I'd really love to hear from you about Lukashenko's dilemma now that it seems that Putin is trying to forcefully oblige Belarus to take active part in the war by supplying troups. One side note: I look forward next Wednesday to see what Belarus will vote on the UN assembly in regards of the validity of the shame referendum. What are your anticipated thoughts given that Lukashenko is an old fox?
There were only 4 or 5 onside with Russia at the UN vote about 6 months ago. I expect they will be the same. The concern is if there will be more abstentions.
Not Vlad obviously but I legitimately think if Belarus enters the war it will be the end of Lukashenko.
In favour of recognizing dictactorships the right to decide our future, for the abstract goal of multi-polarization? Strange logic. We had a multi-polar world already: US and USSR. The result was not a more free world: it was only split into two uni-polar worlds with wars at the fringe.
Not your future, but that of its peoples, only the West believes that it can decide the future of the rest of humanity, because it believes that the West = the entire humanity.
Nothing further from reality
I wish Michael Millerman read your comment. These couple of sentences you wrote are enough to answer his long word salad.
It should be pointed out that the non-aligned movement arose during the Cold War, meaning that U.S. “hegemony” was even less than the Russian propagandists will admit. You might or might not know about this non-aligned movement. It’s where we got the now corrupted phrase “Third World”, which has become a term of disparagement against non-white regions and nations.
Indeed. Multipolar is not a good in and of itself that dismisses the question of what kind of actors and ideologies might act upon the world via those power splits. Multi-polar also does not dismiss the idea of powers acting in generally a common direction either (as has been the hope of the post WWII project).
China is coming bro ...they will "destroy" world economically ...(military they are not behind either...)
It
Russia is only offering vicious, venal chaos. It’s like saying a psychotic toddler with a gun is an equable alternative to a sane adult without one.
Michael Williams might as well argue for Orwell's world 1984 to come about.
This millerman reminds me of the absurd "arguments" random tankies have brought forward to me before XD
Vlad settin' the record straight
Vlad, you are (for me) the most significant, informative and important find on the net in years.
Wow such an idea.
Maybe it was a mistake to defeat Nazi Germany. We would have multipolar world With USA, Nazis, Soviet Union and china.
(As for Georgian, being lucky to be attacked by Russia once in a decade, this argument of supporting Russian aggression for bigger peace, sounds so shallow and wrong, that it makes me sad)
that would be good. Multipolarity>American hegemony
Why are you cutting out Japan in favor of China?
@@MarcosElMalo2 Because Japan is no competition agaisnt America