She is such an awesome guest. She has the highest signal to noise ratios of anyone I've listened to. I'm even tempted to slow down the playback rate rather than speed it up.
In the chart for China’s Civil Wars (1845–1895), there are even errors in the year labels. All I can say is that she is a very capable compiler of historical materials, especially when it comes to geopolitical border issues and the signing of international treaties. However, it is quite obvious that she is speaking from an American perspective. She demonstrates her expertise by explaining detailed factual knowledge, and then suddenly inserts brief statements packed with key implications. Those statements, in essence, reflect Western ideological assumptions. I would say her videos are worth watching, but not worth taking at face value.
> Stalin’s plan, his script for the Chinese and Japanese, works beautifully. Because when the Nationalists unite in the Second United Front with the Communists, going back to the dark side, the Japanese are apoplectic. This is when they do the massive escalation in 1937 and they are off to overextension into parts due south of Russia.
This strikes me as borderline revisionist. Sure, we don't have the official justification of war from Japan, and since the war began literally by accident, the United Front in theory could be one of the factors influencing the Japanese decision-making after Marco Polo Bridge incident. But was it the main cause of the war? Would the war have been averted if not for the Communist-Nationalist alliance? I don't think there's a case for a strong positive answer. But without the alliance Kuomintang would have had to fight BOTH CPC and Japan at the same time, which would have been far more risky and dangerous; I find it just impossible to believe that by forcing Communists and Nationalists to stop infighting Stalin made Chinese position worse and not much better.
> But they never turn it around. They’re always worried about other people invading them. “Do you suppose we pose a threat to anybody else?” They never turn it around that way.
Right. Because that's what all the other countries do. They always worry about accidentally threatening their neighbors and never ever worry about their neighbors threatening them.
> he gets quite popular for his war with Georgia in 2008
Putin was not a president in 2008. I know now nobody considers then president—Medvedev—anything but Putin's puppet at the time, but in any case, it was way less obvious at the time, and since he was representing the government, any popularity boost went straight to him.
The topic of Putin and Russian nationalism comes up repeatedly (e.g. "In part, what’s going on is that the Communist Party wants to play the nationalism card the same way Putin is. If you haven’t got anything else for you, play jingoistic nationalism" or "Russians likewise are trying to use jingoistic nationalism to stoke up popular loyalties".
Mr. Putin is not a man of many strong convictions, but one of the very few constant things in his rhetoric is the adherence to what is basically a Soviet version of multiculturalism: "friendship of peoples" concept and taking a stand against any sort of Russian nationalism ("'Russia for Russians' is a slogan of provocateurs and idiots"). See e.g. his "I am a Dagestani, I am a Chechen..." speech in the beginning of the war, where he sounds basically like Cuomo with his "I am a Jew, I am a Muslim". There are many words one could use to describe his official positions on the war ("Soviet revanchism" would be a good two-worder maybe?), but "nationalism" is just not the most precise one.
These of course were not the only eyebrow-raising moments in the transcript; it's just the things that felt most obviously wrong to me. I have nothing but respect towards professor Paine's expertise, but it's hard not to feel like she's trying to spin a yarn.
Russia sabotaged China by fighting its enemies and sending weapons to China while China fought its weapons…the largest country in the world is a rump state..the country and system that led smallpox eradication and the arrival of humanity to space doesn’t generate wealth, despite its present living standards being well above the global average. Farm collectivization and “surplus” extraction was evil and stupid, obviously, but looking at the economic trajectories of Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, ex-Yugoslavia, or even pre-invasion Ukraine and Russia and contrasting them with Philippines, Colombia, Paraguay, South Africa, Malaysia, Mexico, Uruguay, Sri Lanka etc it looks like a crappy 1990s was a small price to pay for very successful development
This scholar rests on the belief that China and Russia don't have anything going for them, therefore they must rely on nationalism? Out of touch with reality. Both countries prospered under the current leaders, especially China which became the hands-down #1 global power after years of humiliation by the West - despite being set back for a century 70 years ago, I suppose.
Yes if anything they appear to be models for dealing with the “revolt of the public” issues described by Martin Gurri. Economically most of the world would envy the situation of the median citizen in either country. Public safety is probably better in both countries than in the US - way better in China. They are both strong in IT, manufacturing, and resource extraction. They are safe from invasion. They produce lots of food. These are golden times
She is such an awesome guest. She has the highest signal to noise ratios of anyone I've listened to. I'm even tempted to slow down the playback rate rather than speed it up.
She is a fake . Trace her funding source man
What's the source? The Navy?
Love the way you provide transcripts and, of course, this is everyone's favorite guest.
In the chart for China’s Civil Wars (1845–1895), there are even errors in the year labels. All I can say is that she is a very capable compiler of historical materials, especially when it comes to geopolitical border issues and the signing of international treaties. However, it is quite obvious that she is speaking from an American perspective. She demonstrates her expertise by explaining detailed factual knowledge, and then suddenly inserts brief statements packed with key implications. Those statements, in essence, reflect Western ideological assumptions. I would say her videos are worth watching, but not worth taking at face value.
作为一个中国人 我觉得这两个人的观点未免有些幼稚 国际政治不是这么儿戏的
> Stalin’s plan, his script for the Chinese and Japanese, works beautifully. Because when the Nationalists unite in the Second United Front with the Communists, going back to the dark side, the Japanese are apoplectic. This is when they do the massive escalation in 1937 and they are off to overextension into parts due south of Russia.
This strikes me as borderline revisionist. Sure, we don't have the official justification of war from Japan, and since the war began literally by accident, the United Front in theory could be one of the factors influencing the Japanese decision-making after Marco Polo Bridge incident. But was it the main cause of the war? Would the war have been averted if not for the Communist-Nationalist alliance? I don't think there's a case for a strong positive answer. But without the alliance Kuomintang would have had to fight BOTH CPC and Japan at the same time, which would have been far more risky and dangerous; I find it just impossible to believe that by forcing Communists and Nationalists to stop infighting Stalin made Chinese position worse and not much better.
> But they never turn it around. They’re always worried about other people invading them. “Do you suppose we pose a threat to anybody else?” They never turn it around that way.
Right. Because that's what all the other countries do. They always worry about accidentally threatening their neighbors and never ever worry about their neighbors threatening them.
> he gets quite popular for his war with Georgia in 2008
Putin was not a president in 2008. I know now nobody considers then president—Medvedev—anything but Putin's puppet at the time, but in any case, it was way less obvious at the time, and since he was representing the government, any popularity boost went straight to him.
The topic of Putin and Russian nationalism comes up repeatedly (e.g. "In part, what’s going on is that the Communist Party wants to play the nationalism card the same way Putin is. If you haven’t got anything else for you, play jingoistic nationalism" or "Russians likewise are trying to use jingoistic nationalism to stoke up popular loyalties".
Mr. Putin is not a man of many strong convictions, but one of the very few constant things in his rhetoric is the adherence to what is basically a Soviet version of multiculturalism: "friendship of peoples" concept and taking a stand against any sort of Russian nationalism ("'Russia for Russians' is a slogan of provocateurs and idiots"). See e.g. his "I am a Dagestani, I am a Chechen..." speech in the beginning of the war, where he sounds basically like Cuomo with his "I am a Jew, I am a Muslim". There are many words one could use to describe his official positions on the war ("Soviet revanchism" would be a good two-worder maybe?), but "nationalism" is just not the most precise one.
These of course were not the only eyebrow-raising moments in the transcript; it's just the things that felt most obviously wrong to me. I have nothing but respect towards professor Paine's expertise, but it's hard not to feel like she's trying to spin a yarn.
Russia sabotaged China by fighting its enemies and sending weapons to China while China fought its weapons…the largest country in the world is a rump state..the country and system that led smallpox eradication and the arrival of humanity to space doesn’t generate wealth, despite its present living standards being well above the global average. Farm collectivization and “surplus” extraction was evil and stupid, obviously, but looking at the economic trajectories of Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, ex-Yugoslavia, or even pre-invasion Ukraine and Russia and contrasting them with Philippines, Colombia, Paraguay, South Africa, Malaysia, Mexico, Uruguay, Sri Lanka etc it looks like a crappy 1990s was a small price to pay for very successful development
This scholar rests on the belief that China and Russia don't have anything going for them, therefore they must rely on nationalism? Out of touch with reality. Both countries prospered under the current leaders, especially China which became the hands-down #1 global power after years of humiliation by the West - despite being set back for a century 70 years ago, I suppose.
Yes if anything they appear to be models for dealing with the “revolt of the public” issues described by Martin Gurri. Economically most of the world would envy the situation of the median citizen in either country. Public safety is probably better in both countries than in the US - way better in China. They are both strong in IT, manufacturing, and resource extraction. They are safe from invasion. They produce lots of food. These are golden times
Xmas is early! 💚 🥃
30:03 But which numbers is Sarah using here?
30:50 This oil price chart can't possibly be correct.
https://www.youtube.com/live/fFLTgNGjhvs?si=d1TjijyAMGFeUq-n