Debating Jacobin Writer & Foreign Policy Expert Daniel Bessner on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Thanks to Lance from the Serf Times for hosting!
Check out Daniel's podcast American Prestige - / americanprestige
/ theserftimes
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#Russia #Ukraine #Vaush

[@sivervipa]

Honestly I really enjoyed this debate/discussion because it's an incredibly complicated issues and listening to two people that actually care about the issue but want to learn/critique each others views is much better for the left than blood sports. Like it was clear both of you guys were listening to each other and your goal was to learn from each other which is why you ask questions. Basically....I love these more academic debates where two people can learn from each other and both people are worth listening to. But I Don't expect that to happen because people like NC and Luna Oi Don't know what they are talking about and honestly seemed to enjoy basking in the attention they got from calling "Vaush bad." Hell even between two content creators its hard for debates like this to happen because people start to focus more on personalities than idea's.

[@patkohler9695]

That's part of the issue other content creators are just that content creators. They all make there money on clicks and subs and patreons. (See Noah give me money) Experts activist academics have no skin in that game they are not rewarded for being antagonistic or preformative or showy. They are able to have discussions just to get ideas out thereand not worry about it being their job.

[@hideshiseyes2804]

@@patkohler9695 Also it’s good when they do get involved in the online debate sphere if it means, say, Vaush fans go and check out, say, Jacobin (those who haven’t already I mean).

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

@@patkohler9695 Bessner may not have been inflammatory, but he was also not substantive in any way that one should expect from an academic. And it's trivially easy to prove this quite conclusively. He made not a single argument that you can lucidly summarize, which will become strikingly self evident should you attempt to do so. Now, I'm _not_ saying that if you should decline to bother replying to this comment it will prove that you can't specify any argument Bessner made. (There are of course countless legitimate reasons one might not reply to a random internet comment.) But I'm predicting, correctly, that you won't do it in any event because it flatly can't be done.

[@paz8723]

Thats dumb, stop talking to people you disagree with. They're all cultists.

[@andreymontag]

This guy is an idiot. Just because he manages to keep his cool doesn't mean he is right to lie

[@Tubanapoleon]

54:36 "I don't think Putin's going to invade" Well, this take aged VERY well

[@fabianelsen3716]

Also "I think Putin is coming to the end of his political career." My dude was wrong in so many ways.. And here we find ourselves at the point, where so many lefties impressions have been proven wrong but instead of adjusting to these new realities, a big portion of our former friends just decided to deny them. If someone would've told me this was where we were headed 2 years ago, I would've laughed. No more..

[@justinmillette9110]

25:30 "I don't think that NATO has a reason for existing anymore, frankly, and I think that we should disband it." That aged well, didn't it?

[@glenndiddy]

Hearing him say: "I think the people of a region are more able to determine what they want than the people outside of the region", I kind of already lost hope for his political stances. Ukraine doesn't want to be annexed, Europe doesn't want Ukraine to be annexed, the people of the region decided Ukraine should not be annexed. Now those people ask for support in this endeavour, which is completely normal, since Ukraine does not have the ability to stop Russia from yoinking their land. You can't say, let the people in the region decide what they want, and then also say Ukraine doesn't get to decide it wants to accept weapons to defend themselves. America didn't decide Ukraine shouldn't be annexed, Ukraine and the rest of Europe decided that. Since America has a close relations with Europe they engage in a joint effort to discourage Russia from annexing a country, That's all there is to it, there is no ambiguity about what Ukraine wants.

[@russki_dabb872]

Literally. To add more, time and time again, Russian Truthers always want to bring up the "Ethnic Majority" quite often. I think this stems from Kosovo, as apparently it's comparable. Putin references it quite a lot. Kosovo has really good reasons why they wanted to ditch Serbia because...ye know? The thingy thing? Russian ethnic groups in Eastern Ukraine are not even facing that issue at all. But guess who? In Mariupol, which is an ethnic Ukrainian minority I believe, was fucking bombarded by Pro-Russian forces. Anyhow, ethnic majorities don't make any sense for secessions. You have to have really good reasons and they have to be legitimate. Kosovo has it's reasons why they ditched, and they have really good reasons. But in some discussions, they really do paint the picture as if Kosovo only seceded because of it mostly being Albanian. It really seems to me that Kosovo might be why these discussions exist. Russian Truthers don't mention it, but they might have it in the back of their heads when talking about the Russian ethnic groups in Eastern European countries. They think that the West's involvement in supporting countries for secession, mostly in the Balkans, it's somehow only because they are an ethnic majority and they have every privileges to just be "Fuck you, I'm checking out." And the West's respect for Russian ethnic groups in Eastern Europe is "not being respected" because the West is the big Marvel villain in this world, tearing countries apart for their own benefits, not making anything "fair" for Russia. I think it's really just complete misconceptions about the Balkans and why they always want to play the "But muh ethnic majority."

[@euunul]

@@russki_dabb872 We love self determination. * *. When it suits our geopolitical interests.

[@griffinhunter3206]

For what its worth, this is what i would call a conversation. Don't be hasty over saying that there is no hope for this person and these people, your kyle kulenskis and such, because they are acting in good faith. Saying theres no hope for them is falling into what other people want vaush fans to be. Consider their points, in how to argue best against them, and be polite for their politeness

[@Tivilivi]

Ukraine wants to join Nato. But the majority of the ukrainian people are more afraid of the US War mongering that is currently happening than Russia invading. This is a diplomacy issue and the war preparation that is appearently happening in The US media is concerning, to say the least from a european perspective. I think Vaush has good takes in this debate, but what is currently happening in the US is the same as it has been before: war propaganda to fuel your military industrial complex.

[@russki_dabb872]

@@Tivilivi Okay, this is a really bad take here. That's more of an anecdote of "Most Ukrainians don't want US than Russia," in other words....Russian propaganda to fuel Russian imperialism. There is no such thing as US war mongering because why the heck would the US waste its time to go to war with Russia? To add insult to injury, Russia needs to stop bullying its neighbors simply because "They feel threatened by US than Russia." Plus, it's an old argument. "I am X and I agree." Like what Vaush said. This is not the same thing. Russia is a different animal. This is a whole new ball game. The Russian propaganda play book is all about not convincing you, but to make you flooded with doubt. Russia literally is threatening its neighbors and annexing them. This critical thinking is really bad because how would someone arrive at this point; disregarding the dangers that Russia poses? It is a necessary evil for America to do, to put it mildly.

[@xRickAstleyx]

i like how this guy posits russia having a "buffer state" so casually. that "buffer" is a sovereign nation with millions of people in it

[@jascu4251]

This really bugs me too, my wife is Estonian and we spend our summers there. Its disheartening that leftists think of us as either a buffer state or a potential buffer state, thats our (partial) home! We don't ask Russia if we can have Pskov or Leningrad oblasts as buffer states between us and them!

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

Yeah like that country doesn’t have a choice to join nato and he doesn’t care if it conflicts with Russia’s idea that it’s a buffer state. If Russia doesn’t get its buffer state than its war and that’s okay with him??

[@leosklein2573]

Honestly a fair amount of the online left has such tunnel vision regarding American imperialism, they'll twist themselves into knots to make the US the aggressor in all scenarios. We occupied a country for 2 decades like, we don't need to make up stories, the real stuff is bad enough. Ushankas and SKSs are cool and all, but Russia is so obviously in the wrong here. Ukraine has a right to exist as a sovereign state free of threats of invasion from a nuclear power. This isn't a zero sum game. You can say both are bad.

[@vantahawk2834]

"Buffer state" is just a pretty common term in geopolitics. It is certainly not as if the West sees Ukraine any differently. That is not to dehumanize them or anything, it is just an amoral description of how the big players on the world stage perceive the smaller ones. By adopting that concept one is not endorsing their attitude, one just immerses themselves in their lens of analysis.. which is what you do if you want to understand geopolitics. I don't think Bessner's purpose with this was to deny Ukraine their sovereign choice to join NATO if they want. But that does not change the fact that this would expand NATO's sphere of influence closer to Russia's border. Something which - just like Putin's sabre rattling - also constitutes a form of escalation; something Vaush agreed with by the way. I myself am not even arguing wether joining NATO would be right or wrong. I can certainly understand Ukraine's self-interest in that and would honour any democratic, independend decision to do so. Still, decisions don't just become good bc they were reached in the right way. The geopolitical issues remain.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

@@vantahawk2834 by definition if Ukraine joined NATO they would not be a buffer state. Decisions become good because a state decided them. The Ukrainians want to join nato that should be their choice not Russia’s. It’s not Putin’s choice to have Ukraine as a buffer state. It’s should their choice not Putin’s.

[@BenYork-UBY]

This is the Taiwan defense debate all over again and my position is the same. I don't like the argument that we shouldn't be interested in protecting allied nations from imperialist aggression, simply because the US has its own track record of imperialism, and we're sitting here bickering "but what about our own imperialism doe?". It can't be that much more imperialist to place some deterrence against invasion in Ukraine compared to outright invading it. Yes, murica bad, we get it. But invading ukraine also bad. All the bad things the US did in the past is something we can talk about later. But imperialist Russia wont wait for us to finish that talk before they plunder Ukraine and target the Baltics next

[@qwe123303]

Ultimately you never get to socialism with this thinking and it is why people say Vaush isn't a leftist. US maintains capital around the world. For that to change at some point US needs to back off, in other words, let conflicts in another parts of the world play out. If that never happens, socialism will never happen.

[@Frozilla15]

The Baltics are already in NATO Russia can't fo anything to them without starting WW3. Putting Ukraine in NATO would immediately trigger WW3 as Russia still occupies Crimea.

[@BenYork-UBY]

​@@qwe123303 Yea no. Absolutely untrue. The chance of better socialist policies being enacted does not hinge completely on the US (and apparently just the US, as if the authoritarian and imperialistic actions of other imperialist nations is inconsequential) defending a state from the imperialist actions of another state. There is nothing about bolstering the defenses of Ukraine against Putins tyrannical right wing authoritarian regime that is in any way relevant to whether or not a bill gets passed back in the US that improves the rights of US workers. That's a matter of improving the image and representation of socialism and gaining more public support back home rather than arguing over international matters But if it is true that one nation doing something imperialistic is going to stand in the way of socialist politics gaining more traction across the world, then why specifically only the US? Why can't Russia back off? Why do we act as though US imperialism is going to ruin everything for socialists but everybody else's blatant imperialism will not? And I don't see how defending an ally against an aggressor is somehow more imperialistic than the expansionist behavior of the aggressor itself. In response to that you may argue that the US has all the power, and not Russia, and that is your sole concern here. Well a couple things: 1. It's not going to lose any of that power by not helping Ukraine. 2. It's not all the military bases and property that the US has around the world that holds socialism back, its the public perception of socialism that makes the public refrain from voting for social-friendly leaders, and those existing political leaders willingness (or lack of) to create social legislation 3. You should be worried about the capital power that Russia is gaining and will gain. Then you will have yet another major capitalist imperialist power to contend with I reject the implication that a leftist should be isolationist in foreign policy. There's plenty of a reasons why a leftist should give a damn about what's happening elsewhere in the world. Vaush is no less of a leftist for condemning the imperialist ambitions of Putins tyrannical right wing dictatorship like every leftie should be doing right now. And if you want socialism, then focus on improving the public perception of socialist policy rather than acting permissive to Putins military aggression like a KGB bot ..... you're not a KGB bot are you?

[@BenYork-UBY]

@@Frozilla15 well if Russia cant afford to invade the Baltics in fear of starting WW3, then they should be equally concerned about invading Ukraine and also starting WW3. But I'm not talking about adding Ukraine into NATO. I'm interested in defending Ukraines right to independence as I am in Taiwans right to independence

[@qwe123303]

@@BenYork-UBY let's be honest. US isn't actually going to defend Ukraine if Russia invades so I don't know why arguing about this specific thing matters. I'm saying broadly, long term US needs to become more hands off for anything to change because US is a unique defender of capital worldwide. It has shown that again and again.

[@soroushmirghasemi623]

With all due respect to Daniel, it is interesting that now in hindsight after recent events he turns out not only to be wrong on the idea that Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine, but also his assessment of Putin’s character and motivation and the Russian government’s as a whole. As we saw with Putin’s speech before declaring the recognition of the so called Luhansk and Donetsk people’s republics. He consistently used very imperial and conquest driven rhetoric (essentially laying claim to the entirety of the tsarist Russian empire) which would be unbecoming of his conceptualization of Putin. It makes me question if his method of IR analysis really has broad and accurate predictive capabilities (I was much more convinced by it at the time compared to now knowing what I know, of course no single instance or wrong prediction can discredit a whole theory), recent events have really pushed me to believe that the realist IR tradition has a much more robust predictive capabilities despite its simplicity, not to mention I find it more down stream from marxist materialist analysis.

[@lukebrascher2371]

I'm happy that you returned to this conversation to point this out. Daniel should probably be held to account for totally getting that wrong (Russia not invading Ukraine).

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

His remarks here have aged about as well as his trivialization of the January 6th insurrection.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

​@@lukebrascher2371 The absurdity of Bessner's remarks really wasn't any less obvious at the time this was recorded than it is at this moment. In other breaking news, Saddam Hussein is still dead.

[@soroushmirghasemi623]

@@hadronoftheseus8829 I think we all had a veil of forced unconscious optimism that prevented us from seeing the writing on the wall and just how bad things obviously were, even if I didn’t fully believe Daniels claims.

[@Cussy69_420]

@@lukebrascher2371 how would you hold him accountable? What a dumb take! Hundreds, if not thousands politicians around the world in all institutions from UN, EU even to a lot of politicians in Ukraine itself were totally caught off guard by the steps, Russia has taken! This is not about being right and certainly not about any content creators being right! These are complicated issues with a massive, massive complicated history! "Held accountable" yikes

[@AndrewGotimer]

At 57:30, "I think Putin's pretty easy to read..." yes...he is. Which begs the question as to how an expert in international relations in this part of the world couldn't see what everyone who grew up w/ any ties to Ukraine has seen since the fall of the Soviet Union. Really calls into question the larger validity of the discipline.

[@campbellhenderson5945]

hate and bias against America blind people to the morally correct stance on this issue. People really need to reflect on their own biases before speaking so resolute on an issue like this.

[@traplover6357]

Same with hate and bias against Russia tbf.

[@campbellhenderson5945]

True, though in this issue they are the aggressors. And have been in eastern Europe since the second world war. Kind of hard not to despise the Russian dictatorship esspecially within the confines of this issue.

[@campbellhenderson5945]

@@elchapojunior3091 sure its justified, but deterents towards invasion are the way to prevent invasion. As well as giving freedom to those who are being subject to the military aggression of a bully state. If world war three happens due to this, it won't be the fault of America, it will be the fault of Russia alone. The best we can do is do everything in our power to prevent escalation by any means necessary.

[@traplover6357]

@@campbellhenderson5945 what you call "detergents" can be viewed as "escalations" as well. You're assuming more forces will halt aggressions when it can increase both sides' aggression until it hits a breaking point

[@dee-wreck]

@@elchapojunior3091 If hate against America is justified, why are you going to allow Russia to do the things that makes hate against America justified? 🤔

[@tequilasunset8628]

Dude was throwing around names like they were Pokémon moves. But overall was a solid convo!

[@tj12711]

I mean, I think referring to sources that have made compelling arguments is kinda nice

[@tequilasunset8628]

@@tj12711 my issue is he was relying too much on those names as substitutes for actually making his points in his own words. Not much information ends up actually expressed except that he knows of author x, y, or z.

[@domsquared9878]

@@tequilasunset8628 true but at the end of the day Danny is very much an academic and comes from that strand, if you listen to AP he does the same thing and I think it’s just in his nature to back up his points with a direct work on the subject

[@abexx8485]

Yeah thats called sitting your sources.

[@jascu4251]

@@tequilasunset8628 I think it was a bit of both. Citing your sources is good, but at the same time it shouldn't be used as a crux. I don't necessarily think he did the latter but I can see why people might think it

[@artisticcannibalism1350]

I am utterly perplexed by the sheer level of frankly unearned charitability that's being given to Russia. It's honestly reaching the point where I'm not even sure I can call it charitability anymore, more and more it just feels like willful ignorance.

[@Dodovacer]

Somewhere on the internet a tankies lefttrack has come off and he overran, by accident, a poor by-standing, happy antiimperialist, wo was there reading Chomsky, poor him.

[@nonniperkl6273]

10:27 like for example this is so retarded. As a Finn I can tell you imperial action and genocidal idealisation has been big part of our eastern neighbours cultural identity for a long time. I would have way more sibling ethnic groups if it wasn’t for them.

[@CervantesVI]

This was really interesting, and I hope Vaush does more of these chill, academic style debates.

[@williammullinax6130]

I agree. While I do enjoy an occasional knock down drag out they can get old too many times in a row. Need to mix in a solid debate with good faith actors who actually know something about reality.

[@jendelreavis358]

Vaush debates DJ Akademiks

[@ImaginaryMdA]

Remember, debate content is toxic, though. Absolutely nothing of substance can be learned by watching debates. /s

[@nathandrake5544]

Because Daniel Bessner is an actual foreign policy expert and not a clueless debate bro

[@Occam31]

@@nathandrake5544 Vaush may be a debate bro but he isn’t clueless. No one should base their entire worldview on what Vaush, or any other online personality, says but he has a good POV and he’s brought people over to the left. What he does has value.

[@yaboye3791]

@@nathandrake5544 >Wæußh bad

[@jarrettlowery2802]

That's true 90 percent of the time tbf

[@nicolaim4275]

Debate - discussion - conversation. Three words that almost mean the same thing.

[@glich86]

The only frustrating part of this convo was his insistence that history is pivotal in our decisions moving forward; while simultaneously ignoring the RECENT HISTORY of Russia annexing regions; while maintaining a belief that he doesnt think theyll invade Ukraine... Those are three things that do not align and its painfully obvious.

[@jascu4251]

I don't necessarily think its that obvious. Annexing the whole of Ukraine is a different proposition than annexing Crimea, South Ossetia, or even the Donbass (the latter of which they've still not really succeeded with) Ukraine is exponentially larger than the previous regions and for huge parts of it has a resistant population, which wasn't the case with the others Now it is possible that Russia attempts to annex PARTS of Ukraine (maybe to link up Crimea and the Donbass), but I think even that isn't as straightforward as is painted. I think Russia's real aim is destabilisation of Ukraine, not annexation. A more federalised Ukraine with devolution to its regions and less power concentrated in Kyiv would achieve most of Russia's goals, and without the huge cost of annexation So I too, think annexation isn't particularly likely

[@hemantkarasala5767]

The dynamics with Crimea are different from the rest of Ukraine. Due to demographics. So there is no contradiction here necessarily.

[@bluhmer1990]

@@jascu4251 Of course Russia wants do destabilize Ukraine, but what do you think the purpose of that is? I would argue that it's for annexation.

[@jascu4251]

@@bluhmer1990 I don't think so, for the following reasons i) Its too expensive, taking Ukraine is one thing, but holding it is entirely another. Ukraine is exponentially larger than Crimea or South Ossetia, doesn't have a sympathetic pro-Russian population, and will be a drain on the economy. Russia isn't particularly well equipped to maintain a long and costly occupation. Even Donbass hasn't proved an easy hold ii) its not politically popular domestically. Putin's approval rating is the lowest its been in years. Now normally he drums up some kind of war to shore up support domestically, but its not proving popular at home. Yes he is a dictator but he can't ignore public opinion entirely iii) If he was going to do it...what is he waiting for? He's been on the border for a long time now, losing the element of surprise. He's waiting for something, but what? What is it that will suddenly make an invasion viable that it hasn't; been the last 6 months? year? 5 years? 8 years? The purpose of the destabilisation of Ukraine is to prevent its drift towards the EU/NATO. An invasion is a highly risky and extremely expensive approach to such an end, there are cheaper and safer options available

[@bluhmer1990]

@@jascu4251 What do you mean what's he been waiting for? NATO/EU is what's stopping him. You keep Ukraine is different because it's bigger but all that means is that it's a longer term project to annex them.

[@BLooDCoMPleX]

"Human nature" has to be the worst kind of criticism of Realpolitik that I've heard. Nation states are like companies as in that they are in constant competition for resources of all kinds. That's just how they are structured (one of the reasons why they need to go), and any power vacuum always has been and will be filled by any other nation state that finds an opportunity to do so. It's like saying "Amazon should just scale down its industry, then we'll solve the problem of capitalism!" No, other business ventures are gonna fill the vacuum left behind by them. That's why we advocate for replacing capitalism as a system, not just Amazon as a singular entity. The likening of geopolitics to chess can sound very cheesy, but it's actually not that far from the truth. Just like in chess, you are supposed to make the move that puts you in the best and your opponent in the worst situation possible, except this is a board with hundreds of different players with different numbers of pieces each. Now, they do engage in diplomacy, since cooperation is the most beneficial form of interaction between multiple powers, but make no mistake, the end goal of that diplomacy is to capture the chessboard and checkmate everyone else. This will remain unchanged until we get rid of nation states. This is why this idea of "oh just because we did colonialism doesn't mean that others are gonna do it! trust in human beings to make these decisions!" kind of thinking it ridiculous. Human beings aren't making those decisions, systems do. And we have to analyze geopolitics as a systematic process, not as an individualistic one. Edit: After watching the rest of the debate, my opinion remains mostly unchanged. What's frustrating is that Bessner clearly understands this and describes it as anarchy in an international relations sense, but he is so adamant on describing this conflict through constructivist lens that I think he's missing the point. I do have to admit though, that this was the most reasonable output I have seen from people who largely advocate against involvement in the conflict. I would prefer to see debates like this in the future instead of listening to the same NPC talking points over and over again from some nonsensical nazi or tankie.

[@FelisImpurrator]

I think the issue is that fundamentally, he's biased by a desire to view things from an optimistic humanist lens that necessarily presupposes some kind of essential human goodness. He seems like a very feelsy guy - notice how often he refers to morals and "strategic empathy", which kind of broadly resolves as optimistic charitability because he seems to actually be projecting *his* positivism onto Putin - but that unfortunately blinds him to the reality of all the material conditions surrounding the authoritarian nature of the nation-state, and the impetus that drives nation-states toward hostility. Notice too that his proposed solution focuses on the idea of forming a democratic institution, but an institution nonetheless. I think he's actually the closest I've ever seen to a genuine ideological liberal - what people like Soygon claim to be but aren't. Faith in institutions, broadly humanist ideology and a sort of Lockean view of human nature. And I think that mindset is well-intentioned, but naive.

[@BLooDCoMPleX]

@@FelisImpurrator " I think he's actually the closest I've ever seen to a genuine ideological liberal" I agree 100%.

[@loneshine]

@@FelisImpurrator he also couches aLOT of his conclusions in ""in _my_ view" or "as _I_ see it" wiggle wording to the max...

[@Top_Weeb]

We're a bunch of violent monkeys.

[@inteallsviktigt]

Just because you have a power vacuum doesn’t mean one will take its place, it can easily be 10 other nations sharing that power

[@karltheheretik]

Vaush, I recently discovered you after you appeared on The David Pakman Show and I've really enjoyed catching up on your older material. However, your newer "debates" like this one are my favorite because they're civil and come from a more mature, nuanced individual's perspective. Granted, I'm not your typical demographic (I'm 53), but the "drama" material you do is better as an aside than as a staple. I know having agreeable, civil convo's may not appeal to your base audience, but I think you can enlarge your base and have more of a swaying effect by appealing to more mature folks who have more impact on the really real world. I'm not saying I don't get a certain pleasure out of hearing the occasional, screaming debate, but sometimes it gets to the point where the "I'm reacting to his reaction to her tweet about their reaction" material just sounds like a philosophical, debate-bro, circle jerk of sperm-spitting minutae that means very little to reality. Anyway, I hope you keep going in this direction because convo's between intelligent people making salient points is the best way to bridge differences. Keep up the great work!

[@adrijan6510]

I'm 33 and I agree totally with you

[@yellowbeard1]

Can we have Vaush and Bessener conversations on a more regular basis? These sorts of debates are great. I enjoy seeing Vaush dunk on screaming Nazis as much as the next viewer but more content like this would be great to mix into the usual series of videos.

[@royobannon]

God if I could only give more thumbs-ups to this comment. This was an excellent debate by two leftists discussing pertinent foreign policy issues and I learned a lot. I would love more content like this.

[@FoolishOptimistPrime]

This was such a good conversation. Thank you

[@fleebertreatise1063]

Great conversation, thanks for doing this

[@ryanhorner3908]

And people claim all debates are toxic and unproductive... I call bs on that. As a leftist that isn't all that informed on foreign policy this was a very helpful Fondation 👍🏻

[@luxborealis]

Eh, I’d call it pretty unproductive. The Jacobin guy clearly knows much more about the Chinese situation than Ukraine and so most of this conversation he was really trying to obfuscate his lack of knowledge of the historical context of the situation by throwing justifications based on relations theory at the wall hoping something would stick. Ironically the very thing he later on claimed was a bad approach. When he said he didn’t know the Budapest Memorandum and thought it was some sort of current talks he basically conceded any remote claim of expertise on the subject, even a college polisci freshman would know of the Memorandum following the Crimean Crisis. The Memorandum is the one where the US and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s 1991 borders in return for their nuclear disarmament. It’s directly what enabled Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the current threat of war, and Russia’s violation of it has been the justification for almost all the sanctions passed the last eight years against Russia.

[@kiddynamo66]

Well this aged like milk

[@EJ-bn3tc]

For the other guy lmao

[@verager2493]

With all the "US bad!" Going on, I really have to ask: do people think there's a "good guy" in geopolitics?

[@adrijan6510]

Well clearly you do think US is the only good guy

[@Hudathan]

No.

[@verager2493]

@@adrijan6510 no, Ukraine is a valuable asset, which is a major factor in Russia's interest. The US is both aligned against Russia and, due to Ukraine's proximity to it, doesn't have a direct route for neocolonialism on the US's part . Which is why we're giving them guns. It's asset denial, not really humanitarian aid. Ukraine is largely aware of this, but cannot fight Russia on it's own. So it takes our guns. I'm OK with this, because that's Ukraine's best option for deterring a land war of conquest, old school colonialism, which I am against on principle. In the event Russia _does_ invade, their best hope is to drag out that shitshow until Russia gives up. It's not gonna want to. Russia might not invade, but how prepared Ukraine is to resist is part of that equation. If you offer a snack to a dictator, they'll snap at it. You have to make it clear that it's not an easy or consequence free take. Hence the posturing. If you can't think along these terms, you probably don't have much business in geopolitics. It's not a place for good or innocent people.

[@CaBdosdos]

No there's not, with that said it's a geopolitically strategic bad move to invest in that part of the globe which will only push Russia into the arms of China whos already posed to be the next superpower surpassing the US by 2050 at this rate in terms of birth rate and export.

[@pierrecourtois5167]

The country of Andorra is the good guy

[@pewbyhut7721]

Basically: Daniel: "Russia doesn't seem to want to expand, and U.S. imperialism is really bad, so we should draw down our foreign influence and not impose our will upon other regions whose people are best equipped to make these decisions." Vaush: "It is in Russia's interest to fill any power vacuum that the U.S. leaves if we draw down in that region, and the people of Ukraine and other related areas have voiced their preference for the U.S. imperialist boot over the other options of Russia or China. We should respond and give the people the arms they ask for."

[@Reticulated_Spline]

If Russia didn't want to expand they wouldn't have taken Crimea, are we supposed to believe that is where they want to stop?

[@jonathanard7885]

@@Reticulated_Spline widdle ol putin just wants to protect his people! These are issues of russian national security!!

[@kamilgregor]

Ok Vaush sounds pretty based then

[@jessicawilson1751]

@@Reticulated_Spline especially when Russia wanted Poland to leave NATO as well, if I recall correctly? What's to say Russian wouldn't turn around and take Ukraine after all of Russia's demands were met, and then roll on over to Poland to repeat the exact same thing? We heard Russia saying they wouldn't go after Ukraine once they annexed Crimea yet here we are.

[@vitaliybakal7356]

russia doesnt want to expand, it just wants russian empire land back

[@dv4497]

The Soviet Union was 100% expansionist. Lenin was dead set on sparking up proletarian revolution across the world as an excuse to step in and support those revolutions through USSR aggression. This was also Stalin's belief.

[@inurokuwarz]

I swear I'm not a tankie, but I thought Stalin's policy of "Socialism in One Country" was a rejection of that? It was basically Trotsky's major dunk on Stalin. Again, not trying to say Stalin was poggers, just trying to feel out where our ideas are different.

[@arskakarva7474]

@@inurokuwarz Just of the world revolution rhetoric was dropped and there was a shift to focusing on industrial build-up first. After all, Trotsky and Lenin tried to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries already in 1918, like they'd invaded Ukraine and the Caucasus, but were unsuccesful. And it was purely that failure of an immediate invasion of newly independent former parts of the Russian Empire that resulted in the "Socialism In One Country" policy. Stalin had zero intentions of stopping the old imperialism inherited from the Russian Empire, it was only a matter of biding time and building up military might for a new batch of invasions. After all, Stalin occupied and annexed the Baltic countries, demanded Bessarabia from Romania, invaded Finland with intention to occupy and annex it, and helped Hitler start WW2 by invading Poland with the Germans. All before Barbarossa.

[@eliduncan4630]

This guy's arguments are aging well aren't they?

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

About as well as his remarks on the January 6th insurrection.

[@osaabd390]

This was a brilliant debate. Thank you Daniel and Vaushe!

[@cosmic_jon]

We talk too much about the US and not enough about Ukraine.

[@ThisIsANameBruh]

yeah cause Vaush and the professor are citizens of the US. If I lived in the country that dominated everyone I'd feel like it was my obligation to spend most of my time commenting on my own shit since it's currently the dominant shit.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

As if Georgia and Ukraine aren’t their own countries and can’t choose to be in NATO because Putin wants a buffer state. Why is Putin’s wish for a buffer state more important than the rights of millions of people to be secure and safe?? To put it simply, why does Putin’s wishes override these peoples rights?? This guy is acting like Russia has every right to tell Ukraine how to conduct it’s foreign policy. That’s imperialism and he’s basically justifying Russian imperialism in a very roundabout way.

[@zoharianovici1983]

Amazingly informative debate. Thank you

[@paytonmcdermott9111]

I really liked this episode and am an American prestige fan as well.

[@smaakjeks]

Great content!

[@tylerhackner9731]

Solid convo

[@samiamrg7]

That comment about Japan getting “bombed” instead of Germany kinda didn’t nake sense to me. As he said, Germany had already surrendered by the time the nukes were ready, but also both Japan snd Germany were subjected to devastating startegic bombing campaigns. The bombing of Dresden being a notorious part of that. A better demonstration of white supremacy in Allied strategy would be the “Europe first” doctrine, which concentrated resources on defeating Germany instead of helping China fight Japan. One of the big effects of this is that China didn’t have the resources to fend off Japan’s last pushes in China, which is what left them vulnerable to the then still fairly small forces of the Chinese. communists.

[@swanpride]

...the US wasn't actually all that involved in Europe. First they wanted to sit on their hands, and later they were more focussed on Japan than anything else, because they wanted revenge for Pearl Harbour. Most of the fighting in Europe was done by the Brits and the Russian, as well as the supressed staates. The US only turned up their involvement in Europe, when it became a real danger that Russia would take over the whole of Germany. And then they happily threw Eastern Europe under the bus, because it was easier to allow Stalin to redraw borders to his liking than risking a war between the allies. Otherwise the US didn't really care how many Chinese OR Russian soldiers were dying, because in their mind, those were just the next problem on the line anyway.

[@calvinjohnson948]

Nah the reason why it was germany first was because germany was a mich stronger power than Japan and the head of the tripartite pact

[@sleepygene]

so excited for this one

[@felixr.6438]

My, my! An actually watchable discussion. This was really good!

[@bumblebeeatbreadloaf1286]

Good debate/conversation.

[@ZachRM95]

As someone from Washington State the fact that he's a teacher from UW already a red flag for me. They have a tendency to be overtly critical of US imperialism but will outright ignore or minimize the imperialism of other states. For example France or British neocolonialism that's happening in Africa today. As a immigrant from the Philippines that's now living in the states, US imperialism is still a whole lot better than Chinese imperialism.

[@poncho3326]

What would you describe as current French imperialism ? I'm French and I'm not exactly sure what you are reffering to. Not to say you're wrong, I probably have a blind spot on this issue due to biases in the education I've gotten and the (french) media I consume.

[@bearcudlybear]

By what metric is American Imperialism better than chinese Imperialism? Its my understanding that the chinese method of trade first with the third world, particularly in africa, is a major contributor to their success as opposed to the american method of "if they're white and economically tied to us, leave em alone. If they're brown and not in our immediate economic influence, bomb em to shit".

[@efrenyalung1348]

@@poncho3326 the only thing I can think of is those French overseas departments and investments in Africa which are apparently sus neocolonialism which I would buy but I’m not familiar with the subject

[@markgrayson6771]

@@poncho3326 Most of it is in relations with sub-saharan Africa. Mainly in countries like the Congo (with Belgium), Ivory Coast, etc.

[@cthulhufhtagn3852]

@@poncho3326 there are a bunch of French military bases in and around West African capitals, some of which are a legacy of your colonies and some which are operating against insane jihadist insurgencies across the Sahel. Could be worse, without the French mission a lot of those governments would have fallen to ISGS/JNIM/AQIM by now

[@jonathansurovell3516]

"Focus on bigger structures not particular cases." Ugh. No, think about both, use a little critical thinking instead of just coarse-grained heuristics. I keep expecting to hear someone be able to explain the step from "strategic empathy" for Russia to "the US shouldn't help Ukraine resist a Russian invasion." I still haven't heard anything. I'm not for NATO expansion further into Eastern Europe and agree about dismantling the US empire in the long-run. But when it comes to this opposition to support for Ukraine, amongst leftist, I increasingly think the emperor has no clothes.

[@oolacilesbotnet6564]

"in the long-run" Translation: when I'm dead and buried

[@oolacilesbotnet6564]

@KZbin is highkey garbage You. Aren't. Leftists. Stop calling yourselves that

[@poncho3326]

@@oolacilesbotnet6564 Never

[@themightymcb7310]

@@oolacilesbotnet6564 Vaush > Maupin

[@austin7761]

@@oolacilesbotnet6564 "People are only leftist when they support the oligarchic states that aren't the US."

[@afaultytoaster]

54:30 "I don't think Russia will invade". Russia invaded 13 days later.

[@samiamrg7]

So, what is the positive long term outcome of allowing Russia to assert itself in Ukraine? Russia becomes a regional hegemonic power? And then what? How is that any better than the way things are now or would be if NATO supports Ukraine? They are just the Soviet Union but capitalist or even fascist at that point.

[@bethkeenan8800]

Talks about decentralizing the perspective from US global hegemony, then says we should disband NATO, as if NATO isn’t a collection of autonomous countries mostly in Europe that can decide for themselves whether or not they want to be a part of the organization.

[@belkyhernandez8281]

The premise that other nations don't seek to increase their power is silly. Frankly I couldn't take anything after that seriously.

[@supilikecats_]

cannot express how much i appreciate this debate, i've rewatched it twice now because theres a lot of complex details and questions that i needed to think on. hope to see more like this again soon, i genuinely learned a lot and as a russian-american, theres only so much doom scrolling a gal can partake in before the doom takes over. i needed a way to process the news in a way that helps me find my own opinions/point of view without fixating on who was right, who was wrong because i have family who live both in ukraine & russia. my family & friends are all anti war and it hurts us all to see this happening. im thankful to have access to various types of information because i keep hearing from my loved ones that theyre experiencing issues accessing facebook, telegram, & vkontakte. ultimately, nobody wins in war. even the lockheed martin execs who profit off of weapons sales etc. anyways, thanks for this. there is mutual respect here and as an audience member there wasnt even a second where i doubted if the respect was there. its a nice break from the onslaught of bloodsport and doom scrolling. cheers & stay safe everyone xx

[@jakobc.2558]

Here are a couple of contradictions that I noticed this guy belives in: 1. "The people of a region should decide what they want" but also "if the people of that region want the west then that doesnt count." 2. "The world needs to be more democratic." but also "In the Russia vs Ukraine conflict there is no right and wrong side even though Ukraine is a democracy that wants to defend itself from the imperialist agression of the Russian dictatorship" 3. This guy litteraly belives that the Chinese and Russian Dictatorship are rational actors which will not engage in colonialism even though Vaush points out time and time again examples of Chinese and Russian imperialsim. 4. "Yes Russia is agressive and wants to colonialise democracys west of its border but nato still shouldnt exist anymore."

[@sakketin]

He said that the drawing down of the American empire can and will have negative consequences as well, but it still has to be done. His rational was that for USA to be capable of "positive interventions" the system for bad interventions has to also exist. Vaush also agreed that this is a good point. No where did he say that Russia and China won't and don't engage in colonialism he only argued that they don't have global ambitions and every power vacuum left by the USA won't automatically be filled by them. He also thought, unlike Vaush, that nations aren't inherently expansionist to the fullest and promised to write about the topic in more detail. Daniel Bessner spoke in a far more complex and educated manner than the memefied bullet points you've written.

[@evilkhamzat]

A debate bro fan in a nutshell

[@mckenzie.latham91]

@@sakketin He was also wrong on most if not 90% of that again He literally says that the people in these regions should decide what they want when it comes to US interference or the US empire However, when Vaush makes the point that the baltic nations including Ukraine want NATO have asked for NATO, and because they see NATO as the best defense and protection for them against Russia’s 3-4 million modernized army which is one of the strongest armies in Eastern Europe and could not be stopped by any baltic nation which those baltic nations and Russia itself knows damn well. he then back tracks and tries to ignore and talk around that fact and pivots to “nations that didn’t do imperialism” talking points cause he didn’t have any response to his own words being used against him. " His rational was that for USA to be capable of "positive interventions" the system for bad interventions has to also exist.” Which counteracts his idea of not wanting anyone to be conquered or subjugated when he basically states “sometimes warlords have to be allowed to warlord” it seems that his primary concern is not with the act of subjugation itself but that America’s concuss is clear and unstained by not being involved and let someone else carry the moral weight (as if it matters to them). "No where did he say that Russia and China won't and don't engage in colonialism he only argued that they don't have global ambitions” And he’s wrong, the reason they don’t now is because they don’t have the ability or resources to manage it Like Vaush pointed out (states expand based on their ability to do so) Allow them to basically wage slave half of Africa so that it’s an unending silk road of resources and supplies or take any europeans baltic nation they want to have access to more global reaches through ports, markets and resources to grow their small economy like Russia has (a current GDP less than Canada) and they will change their mind. "and every power vacuum left by the USA won't automatically be filled by them,” But many will and many currently are as Vaush pointed out with Russia in Crimea, Georgia, South Ossetia, chechnya, eastern Ukraine etc or China and Africa let alone east Asia, and maybe soon Taiwan etc. Again Jacobin has been a joke for a long time, it’s literally the embodiment of “anyone but the US is fine”

[@sakketin]

@@mckenzie.latham91 As I said he flat-out admitted that drawing down the US empire can have negative consequences in the immediate aftermath. He thinks that as history has shown the US will keep doing FAR more negative interventions if the system is upheld so dismantling it is a net gain. If you believe so strongly that "if we don't do the imperialism someone will" it can very easily be used to justify any and all imperialist ventures. Something not mentioned in the debate is that the threat of Russia could be stopped by a joint European army without US involvement. Macron for example has been a big advocate of this. I would also much prefer that to US involvement.

[@mckenzie.latham91]

@@sakketin "As I said he flat-out admitted that drawing down the US empire can have negative consequences in the immediate aftermath.” And the long term aftermath as well, He just chose to ignore that and pretend like that wouldn’t be the case. Again, the reason these countries want these initiatives or take these other countries is to build and expand their influence and resources to the point they can expand even more and or have farther reach. what occurs in the aftermath will affect the long term as well. "He thinks that as history has shown the US will keep doing FAR more negative interventions if the system is upheld so dismantling it is a net gain.” Yes and that is stupid. The US should ratchet down it’s interventions for selfish reasons (i.e Iraq-a long standing Bush family feud with Saddam/oil resources, afghanistan after Osama fled, etc) but interventions such as enforcing NATO defense of countries who are members and or begging for it against an aggressive and unjustified larger power/bully seems to be the definition of legitimate intervention. again when the idiot said we should dismantle NATO but make sure we give these nations the means to self govern on their own i laughed my ass off... Russia has the largest standing army in most of Europe, with reserves and standing forces it matches between 3-4 million strong it is a modern army with a massive airforce, and large tank divisions let alone Navy and ground forces The majority of the baltic states let alone Europe in general, do not have armies large enough or equipped enough to protect against such a force, that is one of the sole reasons for NATO, which is that all member states combine military resources and aid if one is attacked to counter balance the imposing threat of the Russian army. the idea that these countries can be left standing alone against invasion forces of 100-300k troops from a massive aggressive and nuclear military power is so baffling stupid. "If you believe so strongly that "if we don't do the imperialism someone will" it can very easily be used to justify any and all imperialist ventures.” And yet once again i’ve noticed that we’ve dropped any notion of the people in these areas having an opinion which to me how’s how little you people or this guy actually care about those regions, they see them as sacrificial pawns to protect global stability and or to handle the issues they care about with their country. Again if those people want protection, why do we ignore them? oh right cause we don’t want our country to do it for our own reasons, and what happens to them is just easier to call the way of the world it’s so Weasley and hypcoritcal to the stated goals of “i don’t want anyone to be conquered or anyone to suffer” when you then nullify that sentiment by saying we should let what happens happen cause it’s better...and leave out how it’s mostly better for us actually. "Something not mentioned in the debate is that the threat of Russia could be stopped by a joint European army without US involvement.” No it couldn’t cause half of Europe’s dependent on russia for energy production, the germans are terrified of arming the Ukrainians cause they're worried about the energy pipeline deal with Russia for example, and Germany has massive trade with Russia, everything rom energy to literal fancy cars which they sell by the truckload in Russia. " Macron for example has been a big advocate of this.” If Macron wants this he should maybe then commit more of his own military support and forces to the region instead of allowing the US to foot the bill so often maybe he should show he has any other international backing for this idea, by being able to persuade countries like Germany to fulfill their oath, instead he’s posturing and posturing alone. he’s pulling this option because his own neoliberal lifestyle and policies are tanking in France and he needs a new avenue to look like a valid figure.

[@someperson7733]

This was one of your most entertaining debates tbh

[@888fluffy]

This should have been on the main channel, really good talk

[@eelvis1674]

"Who determines what is right and what is wrong?" ME, you every individual. Everybody should have a moral stance. And Everybody should believe that their stance is the ONLY correct one. And that amaybody who doesn't adhere to their standard exactly is wrong

[@jonathansurovell3516]

Was really hoping Bessner would begin with a specific proposal for US foreign policy toward Russia-Ukraine. For example, encourage Ukraine to return to the Minsk framework, possibly even making military aid contingent on it. I already know that US foreign policy is bad and don't think this fact is enough to choose specific policies in specific cases.

[@DarthAlphaTheGreat]

He admitted early on there is no good or right action, only that he thinks that America shouldn’t directly intervene. He only knows what is not good, but have no good solution. That is a weak position but he did admit to it.

[@jonathansurovell3516]

@@DarthAlphaTheGreat the United States has reached peace agreements before, eg, Obama's deal with Iran. There's a long history of treaties between the US and Russia. It's insane to think it's not worth trying for diplomatic options. If that's what he thinks, he should at least give an argument why aiming for, say, the Minsk framework would be a bad idea.

[@patkohler9695]

@@jonathansurovell3516 Obama's deal with Iran is a bad example because it teaches the world your peace last only as long as the current administration. U.S. constant administration change seem like a liability to more authoritarian style of governments because you never know which U.S. will be around tomorrow.

[@luxborealis]

Lol, you think Bessner knows the Minsk framework when he doesn’t even know the Budapest Memorandum?

[@jonathansurovell3516]

@@luxborealis no, I don't.

[@P51mus]

17:27 when these beeps make it into these videos and make me check discord and I have to double check the video to make sure it came from the video.

[@domsquared9878]

Love Vaush and AP happy to see these worlds collide

[@unelectedleader6494]

Bessner says Russia and China want to be regional hegemons. The US doesn’t tolerate regional hegemons because regional hegemons are free to go anywhere in the world and mess with other hegemons. See john mearsheimer

[@nicovelardita8619]

Good point, is very interesting how Bessner's position fails to acknowledge that regional hegemony and international power kinda go hand on hand

[@Yutani_Crayven]

I understand the points that Daniel Bessmer is trying to make here and I understand it especially given his underlying assumptions. What I don't understand is how he can honestly maintain those assumptions, like seeing Russia as a normal country, and seeing Putin as a normal person and all of that. That seems extremely, extremely naive.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

"I understand the points that Daniel Bessmer is trying to make here ..." Are you sure about that? Because I certainly don't. Whatever he's attempting to say, he's saying it very, very badly.

[@darmansbar7900]

This convo sure aged weirdly

[@artonio5887]

this guy has a lot of faith in the good will of other nations, which is understandable, but what history shows us is that if we risk leaving history in the hands of our rivals, there's always a chance of complete disaster, that isnt risk anyone wants to take.

[@oolacilesbotnet6564]

The world is a disaster in the hands of America, imperialist

[@ParadoxBoxx]

your profile picture looks like a bizarro version of noah samsen

[@arabiannights5301]

@@oolacilesbotnet6564 And it was before America, and it will be after America if right action isn't taken. Just throwing up your hands, retreating and praying that everything will be okay isn't a solution. It's cope. A solution might look more like mutual disarmament (nuclear and otherwise) by world powers over the course of decades, uplifting of countries that suffered from imperialism, defensive alliance and cooperation blocs to prevent war and encourage prosperity, etc. It doesn't look like ceding a bunch of influence to a genocidal fascist state (China) and an oligarchic police state (Russia), and then sitting at home wondering why the world just got even worse.

[@oolacilesbotnet6564]

@@arabiannights5301 do you think the US isn't genocidal? Just *today* Biden signed an executive order to genocide Afghans

[@markgrayson6771]

No offence mate, but it's been a complete disaster in the hands of America. Angola Brazil Cambodia Chile Congo Dominican Republic East Timor El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Indonesia Iraq Iran Laos Nicaragua Uruguay Zaire Just to name a few countries destroyed by the US. Countries have to decide their own future, I know this is hard for Americans to accept and it will mean some bad people being in charge, but history has shown that if you leave countries alone they progress better than if you intervene.

[@maggazilla]

This maybe the best convo on this issue I have seen.

[@runagaterampant]

Very good debate 👍

[@guillermocortes4415]

Bessner whole argument is "TRUST RUSSIA BRO!"

[@se7399]

"I swear, Putin is not like the US mentality of expansionism; source? ehmm, america bad in a unique way xD"

[@GalacticNovaOverlord]

Vaush's whole argument is fearmonger like the state department wants

[@GalacticNovaOverlord]

Listen to a couple to Micahel Parenti's lectures and talks. I'd argue on power dynamics and the big picture he's better than Chomsky.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

He just says that he doesn't think Putin will invade

[@Afri_Pandora_Archieve]

This should go on the main channel

[@trollforlife]

It's rather bizarre in the first 30 minutes or so where he insists, a couple of times, that the lens through which you look at this conflict depends on whether you think human nature is generally expansionist / imperialist, or whether humans are generally peaceful. What does that matter? Regardless of how humans are in general, it is undeniably true that *some* humans are imperialistic, and that included in this set is Vladimir Putin.

[@andrewaustin8135]

It's even more baffling since his beginning thesis was a scathing criticism of U.S imperialism, then later argues that Russia is most likely not expansionist because human nature is generally not expansionist. He is apparently unaware of the irony of arguing that imperialism isn't commonly part of human nature after criticizing a nation with an imperialist nature, and then extrapolating that Russia probably isn't imperialist.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

Bizarre indeed. It's like you were explaining why round tires are functionally preferable to square ones. Such an explanation should be entirely otiose.

[@allekatrase3751]

Really liked this. I disagree with his assessment of what Putin will do, but he's far more educated on the topic than I am so I guess all I can say is I hope he's right. It does seem odd to frequently bring up the history of failures of the US getting involved while largely ignoring the very recent history of Russia. The kind of invasion they're threatening doesn't seem out of line with their recent conflicts. Their threats don't seem like just posturing in the context of their recent history.

[@jascu4251]

I think viewed through one lens this is true, but through another less so. I can see that after annexations of South Ossetia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 that an annexation of Ukraine doesn't seem unlikely. But annexing the whole of Ukraine is a wildly different proposition than the previous two annexation. Exponentially larger than either of the other two, hugely more expensive, a much more resistant population than the previous two, and not necessarily as popular with the Russia public either From a practical standpoint I don't think it follows that the recent history of previous annexations leads to a conclusion of an annexation of the entirety of Ukraine. I'll concede that a partial annexation may be possible (linking up Crimea and Donbass?), but even that I'm not convinced by - most of Russia' goals can be met without the cost and risk of annexation

[@derpeth2101]

Why does the US have to be involved? We Europeans can handle it ourselves.

[@allekatrase3751]

@@derpeth2101 This is a weird comment to me. Why does the rest of Europe have to be involved? Why not just let Ukraine handle it themselves? Why should France get involved? I think the best answer is that we value national sovereignty, don't think invasions are a good thing, and Ukraine is asking for help from NATO, which includes the US. I don't know, maybe we shouldn't get involved. But, it seems we're involved whether we want to be or not given the nature of Putin's demands. He didn't demand Ukraine do anything. Ukraine is the hostage being used to extract concessions. So whether or not we should be involved, I think we already are.

[@derpeth2101]

@@allekatrase3751 Because Putin is not a threat to the US whatsoever, their involvement always makes things worse.

[@allekatrase3751]

@@derpeth2101 Is Putin a threat to France? What about Ukraine? Just let Putin have his way? This "America bad" thinking seems to ignore a lot of political realities and hold double standards on what countries are allowed to do. What about Russian involvement? Has that historically been a good thing?

[@emilchan5379]

This was a great debate/discussion on actual politics. It is very obvious that both sides were coming into this in good faith and with willingness to listen to each other's points. And I find it interesting that their discussion kinda mirrors the ones I have had with some of my family members (they are kinda tankie/China supporters).

[@swanpride]

Nah, the guy way pivoting waaaay too much from the actual point, which is "Russia already annexed part of the Ukraine, it is now amassing troups, the only way those troups are an advantage for Putin is if he actually intends to attack, and if he attacks, can we really look the other way AGAIN, knowing that in eight years (at the latest) he will hit his next target".

[@anthonyrisi5052]

Vaush's comment that War would not be possible because the world so bound by mutual trade obligations that no one would benefit reminds me of Norman Angell's article "The Great Illusion" which made these same claims in 1909. WWI broke out shortly after. Be careful with assumptions like this and don't underestimate fervent nationalism and a countries willingness to act against its own best interest.

[@samiamrg7]

To be fair, the world is WAAAY more intervonnected now than it was then.

[@calmkat9032]

Wow this is the first debate in a long time where I wanted it to go on for longer lol. Would've loved more talk about whether "international anarchy" should be avoided at all. I was actually thinking it lines up with one of the few sane (though wrong imo) Tankie arguments, the support for a dipolar world rather than a unipolar one. International anarchy sounds like a no-polar world, which actually sounds better, so just hearing some points laid out for and against would be cool.

[@FelisImpurrator]

It kind of seemed like "anarchy" was being used in the conventionally misunderstood sense of "chaos" rather than capital A Anarchism as a coherent theory. Which goes back to Bessner's apparent faith in institutions - he talks about an international democratic institution as if we could somehow do the UN right if we just got more nation-states to sign onto it, rather than considering that maybe we need to not have societal structures whose vested interests are mainly to seize and maintain geopolitical control over others.

[@wolfvonversweber1109]

I find it really annoying how Bessner constantly frames it as "I don't think we should decide what happens in eastern Europe." (or parts of Asia) He frames it as if America is a caricature of the Roman Empire, even though he knows it isn't. Nobody is arguing for America just "deciding", what happens there. Giving support and influence to people that actually want to be allied and part of your sphere of influence isn't the same as topling a government in South America! A military base in Germany or South Korea, where the population is in support of it, isn't the same as a base in the middle east. And, crucially, you can't just abstain from decisions and wash you hands of them, if you have the power to change things. America makes a decision about the fate of eastern Europe either way, whether it gets involved or leaves it to other powers.

[@fleebertreatise1063]

Sure, those are good points that this guy should respond to. One thing that's clear is that he believes we shouldn't be in a position to influence other countries in the "imperialist" way, like your example with South and Central America. This kind of applies to a lesser extent to most areas of the world, but your right that it shouldn't be a bad thing to support allies and use influence or power when necessary. There must be ways in the long run for countries to have equal relationships with one another, but until then we'll have to deal with the situations at hand, like arming allies at least in situations like this.

[@wolfvonversweber1109]

​@@fleebertreatise1063 The problem with people like this is that, while being ostensibly anti imperialist, their worldview is entirely imperialist. Or worse, just anti American. What should be the first concern of someone that is anti imperialist? It should be what the people in less powerfull countries want. To give them a voice in how they want to live. Yet these people never even mention these countries as if they had a voice, they treat them like pieces on a chess board and if only the American side would stop playing, it could claim the moral high ground. They are basically American exceptionalists, that think the only reason that a smaller country would want the US involved is that the US decided it for them. They also only care about America, they just switched the "moral" position from "world police" to "we're moraly pure if we don't do anything". If you listen to the people in those countries, it's pretty obvious which involved is good and which is bad. If you have a imperialist mindset, it's all the same, because those countries are just objects of Superpowers. PS: Countries will never have "equal" relationships, because there will always be differences in population, ressources, size, location, access to ports and other countries etc. There are countless variables, which means one country will always have somewhat more power than another. And even if you could redraw the map to some ideal, many of these variables are constantly changing. And how would one even determine if a relationship is "equal"? Does a smaller country get the same say as a bigger one or is it in proportion, where the bigger country can decides more? Both could be seen as not equal. We should strife for >fair< relationships, which benefit both sides, not equal ones. And the best measure for that, though flawed, is democratic support in both countries.

[@youngimperialistmkii]

My issue with "Drawing down the American Empire" Is that it could never be done in a vacuum. China and Russia would undoubtedly fill any power vacuum created by such a draw down. I think that being pragmatic about geopolitics is necessary if you can do any any good at all as a great power. U.S foreign policy must indeed be examined and be subject to critique. However, great power geopolitics is not going anywhere. And I would rather that democracies have a dog in the race. Than leave the world to the likes of Russia and China.

[@oolacilesbotnet6564]

It has to be done even if it means that China and Russia "benefit" If you're resistant to weakening the structures which reinforce American hegemony because of the "Axis of Evil" then you support the American empire. Simple as

[@zothOne]

He gets out of that paradigm by saying "nuh uh", and saying "that's American thinking, Russia and China wouldn't do that". So I guess we've been checkmated now, because we perceive those countries to have a similar will of expansion that every country has had since forever. Not them tho, they are too cool for that 😎

[@insomnius3447]

@@oolacilesbotnet6564 Why is that? Why should we weaken the american hegemony when that means that even worse countrys get even stronger? Your principles are well and fine, but in reality, real humans will suffer under your principles.

[@tomtomtom6970]

@@oolacilesbotnet6564 Do you think that a china or russia controlled west would be a lesser evil?

[@oolacilesbotnet6564]

@@tomtomtom6970 absolutely, the US is built on racism and genocide and for the past century has visited terrible subjugation across the world without repercussions

[@TheLyricalWrdsmth]

Man, such a thoughtful discussion. That hour and a half all but melted away. Definitely want to check out this guy's book.

[@drgonzo1971]

22:30 what does this guy think Khrushchev meant by "We will bury you?"

[@kishendooken1856]

This was the most insightful discussion/debate I watched

[@Paul-ft9dn]

we arent in the middle east simply to access oil, we dont get much oil from the middle east sometimes none. Its to control the oil supply and make as much of the profits as possible flow to usa corporations and also helps prop up the US dollar. It gives us tremendous strategic leverage too.

[@AbonZel3]

I want to put forward my thoughts and feelings on this, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm 100% certain this is the case. I feel like his attitude towards interventionism is significantly questionable because I don't see why it couldn't be applied to a lot of human situations, broadly speaking. I feel like his same arguments could be made towards getting involved in someone else's business in any case. Without solid proof in all cases, you'll never know exactly what's going on, or who's actually correct, or who's actually good or bad, so why do anything ever? Countries, laws, courts, police, companies, families, individuals, no one knows everything, no one will get it right all the time, so how could you possibly think you could ever have even an opinion on a situation that doesn't directly involve you? I know the US has a particularly bad track record, so there's a stronger argument there. However, my question is, is that caused by the concept of intervention itself, or the thought process, motivations, and incentives behind our historical interventions? Should you try to get rid of intervention as a concept, or try to figure out a better way to do it? I feel like if you could actually convince the American people to not do interventions, you could probably convince them to rethink the way we do interventions instead to where the likelihood of an intervention being good gets increased. I think this point is underlined by how, as far as I can tell, he had no real answer to why intervening in WWII was ok but not now. One of his big points was that we have a bad track record with interventions, so now that we have that bad track record, if WWII happened again (ignoring the existence of nukes, which obviously changes a lot of things), would he be saying that we should do nothing about it? Not trying to paint him into a corner or anything, and Vaush was right that it's a morally loaded question, I'm just saying that it's a weird inconsistency. It seems to me that, like everything else, we have to look at our motivations and facts surrounding a situation as we know them, and try out best. Otherwise, it seems to me that we just allow every bad entity to do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they have more muscle than their opponent. I don't see that being a meaningful improvement, or that it changes the status quo in the right direction. Hope that at least is coherent.

[@a1t3rmusic]

very coherent and well said in my opinion.

[@BiancaTallarico]

I swear if the Jacobin sides with Putin on Ukraine I'm done with my subscription. It's seems people are so blinded by their anger at America's imperialism they fail to see Russia and China are conducting imperialism too. Imperialism is bad no matter who does it.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

His argument is basically that you can't fight imperialism with imperialism.

[@Chapman1886]

@@Isaac-eg3um Which of course is a non-sequitur. An imperial power can in other instances prevent imperialism. If Eastern Europe didn't join the EU and NATO, the threat of attack from Russia would be constantly there. The US can both be an imperial power that exploit and invade other nations while simultaneously deterring Russia from doing the same, or at least not to the same degree. It's such a braindead argument to me that the US/NATO should abstain from trying to stop Russia from invading Ukraine because they do similar offenses themselves (unfortunately, no collection of countries have the power to stand up to the US). Two wrongs don't make a right. The lives and freedom of people is not a board game or for winning arguments online, it's about the greater good for the people under threat.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

@@Chapman1886 These are all good arguments, but I think having healthy skepticism going into these conflicts is good and can help us avoid previous mistakes America has made when it comes to war. There's no doubt that at least some of the pretext when it comes to American/NATO involvement in conflicts like Iraq/Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, etc. were justified as they occurred, but each case ended up strengthening some sort of american or at least NATO hegemony, which we should agree is not good as leftists.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

@@Isaac-eg3um He literally has no argument, "basic" or otherwise.

[@pro-choicemom]

Absolutely. I just renewed & im pissed.

[@samiamrg7]

Kruschev’s “We will bury you” speech was all about how Communism will outlast capitalism and inherit the world.

[@efrenyalung1348]

Wasn’t that a less hostile phrase in Russian too? Like saying “your funeral” but then got mistranslated or something?

[@samiamrg7]

@@efrenyalung1348 Yes. It was interpreted as, like, "we will kill you and bury you," but it was meant more like "when you die naturally, we'll still be here at your funeral." There were a bunch of messages in the early Cold-War that were interpreted as more hostile than intended due to poor quality of translation on both the Russian and English ends.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

fucking based

[@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081]

I wish this debate was on the main channel.

[@NoodleBerry]

He might be right about 1953-56. No one knew what was gonna happen and it didn’t have to go the way it did

[@RealmRabbit]

One argument I heard from my class is that the Treaty of Versailles was not harsh enough... Largely since Germany was not occupied after WW1 by the Allies and so it was easy for them to disregard pretty much everything forced on them... (I think they were even rearming before Hitler came to power, not sure about that... Although Hitler definitely amped up rearming and made it publicly known...)

[@Tymbus]

A great discussion between two intelligent people who disagree at times

[@hackymcgogglesface7561]

1:37:31 WTF is this guy talking about? Does he think that we would've nuked Japan if they'd surrendered on May 7 and Germany had somehow kept fighting? Wouldn't that completely fly in the face of the Allies' "Germany First" policy and make no geopolitical sense whatsoever? Dates for context: May 7: Germany surrenders. July 16: Trinity test confirms nuclear bomb viability. August 6: Hiroshima is nuked. August 9: Nagasaki is nuked. August 15: Emperor Hirohito announces Japan's surrender. September 2: Japan officially surrenders.

[@transtheistdebates3549]

Japan was trying to surrender, for weeks but we wouldn't accept their surrender until after we nuked them.

[@l2ubio]

54:33 📸

[@TRE45ON.is.Bat5hit.Crazy.U.S.G]

What I'd know about war.. Regardless if the Russian invasion might seem inevitable for casual observers, and they will overpower the defenders of course, but then the Russians will end up in a situation like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russia/Afghanistan i.e. attrition by insurgency. A Protracted war today by the Russians will resulted on them spending all their time planning to fight soldiers, and they'll end up getting clapped by a 15yrs Ukrainian farm boy with an old 7mm Mauser and papas pissin hot handloads.

[@humancivilisationwasamista6293]

How does it seem inevitable? Why would Russia invade areas with a Population which is hotile towards them.

[@jjquinn295]

The Russians wouldn't have the same issues as America had in Afghanistan in Ukraine. Ukraine is much more flat without mountains for a cell to hide in, and the Russians have had a history of being willing to roll tanks in against protests to keep power. The American people don't like keeping large numbers of troops in places they aren't wanted, we're as the Russians were willing to station them for 50 years.

[@TRE45ON.is.Bat5hit.Crazy.U.S.G]

@@humancivilisationwasamista6293 When Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994 the US, United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation signed the Budapest Memorandum in which they all agreed to "respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." While NATO expansion into Ukraine would definitely be more extreme, it hasn't happen so far. Russia illegally invaded and annexed Crimea (against Article II, sections 3 and 4, of the UN convention) and Russia illegally invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine using unmarked troops (against the Geneva Convention). NATO is largely a defensive organization as it doesn’t invade and annex territories. Don’t get me wrong, it’s okay to debate issues like if Ukraine should join NATO and allowing citizens of eastern Ukraine and Crimea to have democratic referendums on leaving Ukraine for Russia. But, it’s unacceptable for Russia to just illegally invade a country and steal its territory. Just like it was illegal for the USA to illegally invade Iraq under GW Bush under false pretenses. Today some on the left are gonna go nuts like they did before but how about the Ukraine is a sovereign nation and should be seen as such, every country has a right to self determination and a right to defend itself from aggression from hostile external threats. Ukrainians obviously has nerves of steel. All of their volunteers, defending their country, I'm hoping they don't have too, but if they do, bravo.

[@TRE45ON.is.Bat5hit.Crazy.U.S.G]

@@jjquinn295 That logistics can be applied to the flats on the desert and you're assuming the same way the top militar people does.. The most dangerous people are those amateurs defending their land cause they're not expected to fight or they don't fit the militar narratives.. I'm a Vet, and I've known this Ok.

[@humancivilisationwasamista6293]

@@TRE45ON.is.Bat5hit.Crazy.U.S.G Some Eastern Ukraine Regions have a large Russian Minority and Separitist unlike the rest of Ukraine.

[@wyndgrove9452]

It's weird how many apologists for a Russian invasion of Ukraine can't imagine that Ukranian people might have a say in what happens to their country, and not want that to happen.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

It's complicated, especially in the regions of eastern Ukraine and Crimea where there's a substantial level of support for Russia.

[@wyndgrove9452]

@@Isaac-eg3um Lots of countries have a variety of political views. Doesn't mean another country gets to invade it using that as a pretext. An attack by Russia is as unecessary as it is cruel.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

@@wyndgrove9452 Russia's invasion is wrong either way. But it terms of harm done if it comes to that - it's preferable it happens to regions which Russian sympathies, which is at least how it looks now.

[@jirkazalabak1514]

@@Isaac-eg3um Yeah, it mostly comes down to economic interests, as well as cultural ties. The western part is close to Europe than to Russia, whereas in the east it´s the opposite.

[@Isaac-eg3um]

@@jirkazalabak1514 Yeah exactly. If it came down to Russia invading, not sure it would go beyond the east.

[@iamdamosuzuki_]

“Hegemenony” - Vosüsch

[@RedLiteAlexi]

Damn this dude likes books

[@artonio5887]

11:10 - disagree, what china's history tells us is that they've always considered themselves the middle country, to which all others bow, and the objective of today's china is clearly to reach that status once again. Even if china won't out right invade the world, to protect the strategic trade zones, to challenge the international order, and to protect your sources of power, it's inevitable that they will need to try their own form of power projection, china is right now fighting for hegemony in its backyard, but what you wont hear about is that china has been buying ports all over the world, in shri lanka, in the red sea, etc... its clearly a process... There's no reason for us to think china will be any different from the US, it might be even worse given their political stances, and letting them even have a chance at reaching that level of influence is a huge risk for the security of the world, specially the west.

[@iamdanyboy1]

Big difference is the demographic advantage US had aligning with post WW2 hegemony. China does not have that. So probably will never reach US/USSR peak status.

[@Revan058]

Yeah, Danny's China take is a bit deranged, particularly given his claimed deference to history .

[@artonio5887]

@@iamdanyboy1 I agree, significant challenges would face china before it can become like the US, china doesn't have the advantages you mentioned, and china has almost no allies, and allies are one of the main reasons why the US is as powerful as it is.

[@samiamrg7]

+Likewise, there is a reason why Russia extends all the way from the Baltic to the Pacific and once had half of Europe as satellites. They have always had expansionist tendencies. It kinda doesn’t matter if they feel they need this territory as defensive depth, it is still imperialist. Besides: they have nukes. Nobody is going to fuck with them no matter how much or how little insulating territory they have.

[@4freeedom]

Very glad that I had taken an intro course on International Relations before, otherwise a lot of what Daniel said would have made little sense lmao

[@Wildbarley]

Maybe it’s because I have read a lot of Russian history and literature, but Bessner’s position seems to fly in the general face of Russian cultural thought for centuries. If we pulled out of Eastern Europe’s sphere, Russian would move into that vacuum. I too am a humanist, but I cannot in this instance of geopolitics discount the words of Russian Dostoevsky as written in Notes from Underground. It’s lessons on human nature are very apt and in contrast paint Bessner’s unfortunately naive view on likely outcomes. The alternative is Bessner’s is not naive and if the end of empires means a globe bathed in regional blood, that’s ok. I personally would not view that as a victory for progressivism humanism. Any path that would increase the level of human violence visited upon one another will never be a universal good to aspire towards.

[@itswakke]

I want to be as well read as Daniel but be able to communicate it to the layman like Vaush

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

He didn't communicate _anything_ . At no point did he make a single argument. His handful of reading suggestions may or may not be good, but his conversation in itself was absolutely worthless.

[@TheMetalGryphon]

This has aged well.. The Putin apologist really said they would never invade lol

[@DanteRatto]

When?

[@yan_dj]

@@DanteRatto 54:33

[@DanteRatto]

@@yan_dj "I don't think Putin is going to invade" is not even close to "Putin would never invade".

[@gabbo7101]

To this day I dont understand why people still simp and apologize for russia, despite being objectivly the bad guy in this situation, on all accounts? Is it really just american lefties contorting themselves trying to say "america bad" by glorifying somehow worse countries?? America kind of proves itself to be bad on it's own. You dont need to simp for an imperialist to disavow another imperialist. I get this dude is being polite and all, but his arguments really do seem to boil down to the same shtick as all the others.

[@antidote7]

Its not about NATO invading, it is strategic and at some point with the continual cutting off of Russia which could weaken them further to where we really don't know what the US would do.

[@crocodilealigator5504]

Current time is the closest we have been to 0 hour

[@pimposki6232]

framing this as a debate cheapens it considerably. i'd retitle it to "discussion with" instead.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

It was neither a debate nor a discussion. Bessner had absolutely nothing to say. He made no arguments and took no intelligible position. If he had any substantive insights to share he failed utterly to articulate them.

[@frankgore3719]

A real person nice

[@MrMollytov]

Adam Something did a great video on this

[@PandemoniumVice]

46:13 Vaush managing to pronounce hegemony both ways at the same time.

[@trashketchum9782]

labeling genocide as “short-term harm” should be such a wild take but it’s what i’ve come to expect from ML types. literally just cuckoldry as a foreign policy position. “it’s ok if China and Russia dominate other nations and ethnic/religious minorities as the hegemonic power of their *region*, that’s only bad if the U.S. does it” they let this mindset cloud their takes on Israel too. there’s a difference between people who genuinely care about the human rights of Palestinians, & people who use the situation to support Islamic & Arab ethnic hegemony in the broader MENA region. they see the entire situation within a vacuum, severed from the broader geopolitics of the region. Palestinians are oppressed under the current system, but millions of Jews who escaped ethnic cleansing in other MENA nations would be oppressed under a system that’s just like any other in the region. as well as all the other ethnic or religious minorities such as Armenians, Palestinian Christians, Bedouin, Druze, & Baha’i people that live there. other things include supporting Hamas after what they’ve done to their own people or supporting BDS which ultimately harms Palestinians & negatively affects their material conditions since they currently rely on Israel’s economy. so it’s easy to tell who genuinely supports Palestinians & who actually supports Pan-Arab Nationalism

[@invinciblemic]

25:00 I'm sorry but I thought us in the region had it figured out and yes, having american military aid is one of the things we do actually want.

[@SteveScapesYT]

Before even starting this- if going to debate Jacobin, why can’t this at least be on the main channel…?

[@aiminyou]

Great convo, like this a lot more than some of the mindnumbingly stupid bloodsports

[@problemsolver3254]

15:08 that face

[@Shsjier]

This was good. Not really a debate though