동아시아의 평화와 화해의 정치학 Scrapbook: The Power of Crisis | Robert Wright & Ian Bremmer

2022-07-21

The Power of Crisis | Robert Wright & Ian Bremmer | The Wright Show

The Power of Crisis | Robert Wright & Ian Bremmer |

The Wright Show

6,583 viewsMay 18, 2022

162

Nonzero

0:00 Ian's brand new book, The Power of Crisis 4:27 Did NATO expansion lead to the invasion of Ukraine? 18:23 Ian: We shouldn’t have left Russia behind after the Cold War 26:04 How much trouble is caused by America’s lack of perspective-taking? 31:37 The critical problems Ian wants the world to focus on 42:00 Does the “democracy vs. autocracy” framing do more harm than good? 50:37 The rival technological visions of the US and China (and Elon Musk) 56:26 Could our current crises be the seeds of future flourishing?

Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and

Ian Bremmer (Eurasia Group, Us Vs. Them, The Power of Crisis). Recorded May 17, 2022.

Comments on BhTV: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/64172

Twitter: https://twitter.com/bloggingheads

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bloggingheads/

Podcasts: https://bloggingheads.tv/subscribe

Chapters

56 Comments

Sejin Lifeforce 生命

Add a comment...

JoeCitizensBlues

1 month ago

Love Robert's sense of humor.

Aaron McNally

2 months ago

This is fantastic!

Aaron McNally

2 months ago

I love these guys!

Doug Devine

2 months ago

An incisive rich conversation, way to nail content guys, edify the public and avoid and adhominem attacks or label mudslinging. , indeed Putin asked Nato back in 2001/02 to enter NATO, our American hubris mocked his request. Its a great failure in my view, geopolitical myopia not to align with Russias interests rather than treating Russia equipped with a highly educated populace into a western alliance.

ermiasd

2 months ago

Amazingly good talk

Jason

1 month ago (edited)

Another possible explanation for the failure to integrate Russia into the West is that the Cold War only ended on one side. We take for granted that the US "won" the Cold War, but the Cold War was not only a state-to-state rivalry, it was (like WWII) a "war of religion" and a total war at that. The US outlasted the USSR, but I think we should consider a new historical paradigm around how we interpret the Cold War. We may eventually speak historically of the collapse of the USSR and the USA, even if the USA (as a Cold War superpower) lasted a few more decades. We should also consider that China represents the Third World, not the First and Second World ruled by the USA and USSR. The USA has no clue how to deal with the Third World, because the USA can only think in terms of "integration" e.g. for Russia. But the Third World will never be "integrated" in that manner, the Third World a.k.a. the Global South is in the midst of its own history-making. Russia has declined as a First World threat to the US, except militarily, but Russia has common cause with the Third World, and possibly with China. The US can try to discredit these worlds as totalitarian or authoritarian, as it has done to Russia and China, but the politics of "integration" will never be real because we are all children of different histories. Many countries around the world see Putin's war as a regional matter and they distrust the US on principle.

mgriff0309

2 months ago

Oh man, this should be great. Two guys I like a lot although I heavily lean Bremmer on Ukraine/Russia

Isa Genesi

2 months ago

Very interesting conversation thank you!

Mayor McCheese

2 months ago

Imagine if we treated Japan in 1946 the same way we treated Russia in 1990.

smill437

2 months ago

The USA nuked Japan twice. Kind of oversimplifying to draw a line at ‘46, obviously.

Mayor McCheese

2 months ago

@smill437 l was referring to the rebuilding phase of Japan in the 50s. America spent the 90s effectively sneering at the Soviet Union's failure and doing nothing useful to help.

OleWetDog

2 months ago

@Mayor McCheese I guess the question is what could we have done and would they have been receptive. Anne Applebaum has an article about that early 90s time period that suggests Russia was even then sounding the old imperialist whistle.

Daniel Carlson

2 months ago

Imagine if Japan never went to war and their country imploded from an internal crisis and we treated them with kid gloves. If you want to make a hypothetical comparison. Pro-Putin folks really like to draw asinine historical analogies that don't make sense in order to justify his every gripe.

Kathlean Keesler

2 months ago

Interesting- thank you.

smill437

2 months ago

Domestic support for joining NATO in Ukraine was extremely mixed pre-invasion. Also, there was a Civil War going on for 7+ years thatsat firmly in the way of Ukraine ever joining NATO anyway. In other words, the pre-invasiin status quo was that Ukraine could not, and would not be joining NATO any time soon, regardless what anybody wants to say about expansion as an issue contributing to the decision to invade. The status quo was favorable to Russia. Better trade situation. Better diplomatic situation. It was a better everything situation. They were awarded an Olympics in Sochi a short while ago.

Post invasion, Finland and Sweden want to join NATO, and domestic support for Ukrainians to join NATO is now higher than ever. And we now can view Sweden and Finland as having very good reason to want to join... especially since their self determination has been threatened when Putin threatened them over getting any ideas about wanting to join, just 2 months after Russia turned a proxy war in one of their neighbor nations into cold blooded war of aggression.

I'd love to hear how NATO is the unreasonable actor here. How about the CSTO Bob? Do you have any criticisms of it? Its mutual defense charter? Love to hear it.

Natus Vincere

2 months ago

"Domestic support for joining NATO in Ukraine was extremely mixed pre-invasion. "

Pursuing NATO membership is in the Ukrainian constitution itself.

smill437

2 months ago

@Natus Vincere regardless. This was a red herring.

Did you see the news today? Lavrov says Sweden and Finland joining NATO makes “no big difference”. Direct quote.

The truth is, there is something distinctly insulting about Ukrainian independence that pisses off Russian ethnonationalists (like Putin), because the land of Ukraine is a Rus/Slav origin story for the Russian empire. This is a land that was always going to be attacked, or win its independence from Russia through conflict. It is the price to pay so to speak. “Unite the Rus” Russians, think Ukraine doesn’t deserve to be a country, and isn’t a country. That is 100% the reality of the problem and I don’t think Bob yet appreciates that, even though Nikita Petrov mentioned it being described exactly as this by a former Ukrainian ambassador, in their episode together. (Nikita is not in line with this thinking thankfully).

M Mq

2 months ago

@smill437 It is exceptionally hard to launch a large-scale invasion of Russia via Finland or Sweden due to climate/terrain issues. It is exceptionally easy to do it via Ukraine and Belarus. This has been explored in detail by war strategists from both Russia and Western countries . That is why these 2 are incomparable cases.

smill437

2 months ago

@M Mq Kind of agreeing with me by proxy. It isn't NATO expansion, per se (Bob's hobby horse)... You're just saying Ukraine is uniquely situated geography that Russia won't cede control over.

We might disagree here, but I contend that Ukraine neutrality isn't enough. Neutrality is what Russia basically guaranteed via the proxy war, and latent mixed support within Ukraine for joining NATO... which doesn't matter because Russia A) got Crimea, B) was fighting alongside separatists using Russian SF, C) Ukraine can't join NATO while the country was in conflict.

The pre-Feb-2022 status quo served Russia very well. All he's done is encourage more NATO expansion, and he has kicked a hornets nest by openly invading Ukraine. More sanctions. More war expenditure. LESS security for his country. What a dunce.

Zac Cooper

2 months ago

So, glad to see Ian back on the Wright show! He's become one of my most trusted sources of information on global events. Where's Moose?!

Johnny Watkins

2 months ago

Yeah but with the greatest respect, Ukraine wasn’t in nato and wasn’t even looking at nato before Russia annexed Crimea. Even after that Putin’s problem by his own admission was that nato refused to rule out Ukraine joining. Not that joining was actually immanent.

Now you might say he didn’t want more countries in nato on or around his border but surly the obvious out come was that the rest of the country’s with in striking distance would seek nato protection in the face of obvious Russian belligerence? I mean if arresting nato expansion was his primary goal then giving every country on his door step a reason to join nato seems counter productive to that end?

dialectical divination

2 months ago

I don't know why people keep saying that Ukraine wasn't even looking at NATO before Russia annexed Crimea. According to the archived NATO website:

"NATO-Ukraine relations date back to 1991, when Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1991 (later renamed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council), immediately upon achieving independence with the break-up of the Soviet Union. A few years later, in 1994, Ukraine became the first of the Commonwealth of Independent States to join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) a major programme of practical security and defence cooperation between NATO and individual Partner countries.

"The formal basis for NATO-Ukraine relations is provided by the 1997 NATO-Ukraine Charter on a Distinctive Partnership. The Charter identified areas for consultation and cooperation and established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take work forward.

"Steps were taken to deepen and broaden the NATO-Ukraine relationship in November 2002 with the adoption of the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan.

"The launch of the Intensified Dialogue in April 2005 marks a milestone in NATO-Ukraine relations. It is a clear signal that NATO Allies support Ukraine's integration aspirations. However, it does not guarantee an invitation to join such an invitation would be based on Ukraine's performance in implementing key reform goals. NATO and individual Allies are committed to providing assistance and advice, but the pace of progress remains in Ukraine's hands." https://web.archive.org/web/20070411113805/http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ukraine/topic.html#evolution

Johnny Watkins

2 months ago (edited)

@dialectical divination thank you for the correction but I still maintain NATO wasn’t particularly wanted in Ukraine before Crimea, and membership wasn’t immanent at the time of the Russian invasion. see the bit at the end of your post? Progress remains in the Ukraine’s hands? Well the Ukraine made very little of that progress in the intervening time from 2005. People keep saying it because despite the nato moves you have kindly drawn attention too and thank you again for that, up until the Crimea their hadn’t been a lot of public or political enthusiasm for joining NATO. I mean Ukraine government says can we join, nato says sure but we need you too “implement key reform goals” in-other words sort out the corruption and Ukraine leaves it there. And as your post points out NATO didn’t guarantee membership even if Ukraine did meet the requested key reform goals.

dialectical divination

2 months ago

@Johnny Watkins I agree that public opinion in Ukraine seemed deeply divided about the NATO question until around 2014 when the scales seemed to tip more in favor of joining, although some polls I have read seemed to indicated a continued back and forth between public support for and against joining NATO even after 2014. However, with the exception of Yanukovych, most of the political leaders since 1991 seemed interested in at least drawing closer to NATO, if not outright joining. In 2014 Poroshenko made it a priority for Ukraine to join NATO (this is after the timeline in my fist post) and in 2018 Ukraine was listed officially as an aspiring member of NATO (again this is after the timeline in my first post). None of this justifies invading a sovereign country of course. It's just to point out that Ukraine has been quite closely aligned with NATO for decades before the annexation of Crimea, and Ukrainian politicians seemed to have supported NATO alliances (if not outright membership) fairly consistently for decades. And while it's true that NATO didn't guarantee membership, they certainly consistently offered deeper connections, assistance and alliances, rather than any hesitation or doubts. If I were a Ukrainian politician I would have interpreted NATO actions as being more in favor of Ukraine joining, rather than less in favor.

Johnny Watkins

2 months ago (edited)

@dialectical divination I can’t argue with any of that great points well made, I guess the point I’m trying to make is a lot of commentators have made much of the cause of this war being NATO provocation antagonising the Russians into it. And I don’t totally disagree with that point of view. But, it also must be acknowledged that Russia’s own actions over the years has also been driving these countries in NATO’s direction. Maybe these places wouldn’t have felt the need for the NATO umbrella if Russian aggression wasn’t such a credible threat? I’d like to end with the point that a sovereign nation has the right form an alliance with whom ever they wish with out the permission of their neighbours. Now I realise that right rarely survives contact with reality (just ask Cuba) but it is still in fact their right

dialectical divination

2 months ago

@Johnny Watkins Yes, I absolutely agree that (a) sovereign nations do / should have the right to form alliances with whichever nation(s) they want and (b) there are many causes for the Russian invasion, certainly not just NATO. Also just wanted to say thanks for a civil exchange on this topic! It's nice to have a thoughtful exchange of views on social media

mark jabbour

2 months ago

Hey Bob, have you watched Lex Fridman's podcast w/Oliver Stone? Regarding Putin's motivation and all things concerning your concerns? Bremmer, like Haidt and the other "thought leaders" are a huge part of the problem. You remain maybe the only VoR. Because, well, never mind. ;-)

IM BORAD

2 months ago

One point If you want to have the right to punish other countries (like Russia) for invasions, war crimes and build consensus around sanctions in the international arena more than just with allies or( vassal states as i love putting it) . You need to make yourself accountable be it for your own invasions or war crimes. Like the first thing the US could do is join the International Criminal Court. It's not enough saying "yes we wrong" but now focus on Russia, Like I didn't see one sanction imposed on the US for all the invasions done in the last 20 years far worse, and far less justifiable than the Russian one, nor any serviceman or US political figure was brought to the ICC. Same goes to the Freedom of navigation that the US is pressuring China on while not being part of the Sea treaty as it would make it accountable. A similar argument goes for the tech standards competition with China if you try to use the strategy of containment to their semis, Ai, and capability to create competing standards around the world. Then you mast be prepared to expect the same or similar containment strategy originating from them due time. Providing the argument "well we are democracies, while you aren't" doesn't stand a chance as an argument in power competition nor ultimately the international arena as it's highly ideological and ideology is very customizable and different from State to state. Also the analogy about the US winning over the Soviet Union because of democracy is also wrong. As the Soviet Union ultimately failed not because of democracy but economic isolation, poor management and isolation while the US succeeded at that time because of the incentive and economic investment it brought at that time to the economies that mattered.

Jason

1 month ago

The ICC is a kangaroo court that represents the global security regime. The main function of the ICC is to oversee the human rights regime especially by holding African states responsible for "human rights" violations. But really, human rights is just the ideology that fronts the global security regime. The West (and China) are in a new Scramble for Africa and the ICC is one of the colonial institutions used to penetrate into African politics and economics. The Trump Administration via John Bolton called out the ICC as a kangaroo court.

sebastian577

2 months ago

This isn't a conversation, this is an increasingly unhinged Bob shouting his pro-Russian views at Ian.

explrr22

2 months ago

It's a little wacky.

I'm now about 32 minutes in and it seems like Bob's now beginning to discuss ideas from Ian's book...

We'll see how long this lasts!😄

G P

2 months ago

@explrr22 yeah it is just Ian trying to be polite to Bob ranting

Dan Secrest

2 months ago

ProRussian views?? Bob insists Russia should obey international law when the US doesn't. Why should any country agree to play by a set of rules that are not recognized and enforced?

explrr22

2 months ago (edited)

@Dan Secrest yeah pro-Russian isn't at all accurate. Still every conversation he has these days seems to be more than a third insistently pressing his complaints on topic.

I think it's a POV worthy of more consideration... Yet still!

explrr22

1 month ago

@Dan Secrest reflecting further...

I think what we have with Bob, is an intense heartfelt distress at a dominant biased pro-west perspective and its dangers.

That sometimes leads to overcompensating that drifts into its own bias.

Watching his weekly talks with Mickey Kaus yesterday, he pretty much admitted that it has become a problem, as he reflected back on his analysis of a war incident from the week before.

To his GREAT credit he's aware that the bias is distorting his judgement to some degree. These days... It's really rather exceptional to witness someone with strong emotions around a POV do that!

...I think, as an audience, it's best not relying on discourse participants to self acknowledge bias in their assessments. Because, public acknowledgment seems super rare.

Dan Secrest

1 month ago

@explrr22 Well said! Thank you for keeping a cool head, something I try to do but am not always successful.

explrr22

1 month ago

@Dan Secrest Thank you for responding so thoughtfully and generously.

It's been a heartening exchange that I've learned from.

It's sometimes reduced to online media being toxic, and IRL being healthy.

So far, this week, that's flipped for me!

Hooray to you, for being part of that!!

It started with your corrective challenge, and I hope, this inspired me to improve.

Probably expressed too rarely... I'm grateful.

Grimjack13

2 months ago

No Mickey, No Like

Borgeso Thomaso

2 months ago

This was a Bob Marley song, right?

benn thirteen

2 months ago

Such a shortsighted view, You are ignoring Russia history, there is no way Russia given its geopolitical sphere and history would fully integrate with west, such a shortsighted journalism.

2022-07-21

The Power of Crisis | Robert Wright & Ian Bremmer | The Wright Show

No comments: