Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1. 126
  2. 118
  3. 63
  4. 50
  5. Some good points...BUT... 1. Oil & gas are of NO importance. In 20 years, the world will have a renewable energy infrastructure, or be well on the way. Oil & gas will be obsolete. Also, oil and gas are everywhere. ALL continental shelves have reserves (laid down during Global Anoxic Events in the Mesozoic). 2. Russia still has shown no interest or ability to partake in the global economic community (unlike China). This will hold Russia back for a long time. 3. Resources??? That is 19th century thinking. Wealth comes from value adding, finance, and intellectual property. Look at how wealthy Holland, Switzerland, and Israel are. Few resources and almost no land. Yet they do very well. 4. St. Petersburg will be flooded. 5. China, US, and Europe are going to benefit greatly in financing, enabling, and implementing the move to renewable energy. Russia will be shut out of that. 6. Russia COULD benefit from a huge influx of climate refugees --- IF they were welcoming and geared to do that. But, Russia is nativistic, looking down on those not slavic or even Rus. Russia has no means to encourage or even allow immigrants to start businesses. Immigrant founded and owned businesses is one of the great sources of wealth for the United States. 7. Canada is the North American equivalent of Russia's Siberia. It will get more temperate, and become more livable. Americans will move there. Agriculture will increase there. When looking at North America as a whole, we are not as bad off as you might think. Florida and Gulf Coast will be flooded. But, the US has the flexibility to deal with the huge internal movements of people.
    18
  6. 18
  7. 18
  8. 15
  9. 11
  10. 10
  11. 9
  12. 8
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26. 5
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. There were several causes. Like always, reality is more complicated. First, trade with the orient moved to Portuguese, Dutch, and English ships, thus starving the silk road. The once trading monopoly that the Ottoman's enjoyed ended. Second, the western European development of the corporation enabled western Europe to manage capital and investment better. Western Europe slowly became wealthier and more powerful than Eastern Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Third, the development of the policy of "separation of Church and State" that occurred after the Thirty Year's War freed Western Europe from the issues of religion, bringing on the Enlightenment. Fourth, the overseas colonies and trading empires of Spain, England, France, and Holland increased their wealth and power immensely. Fifth, the maturity of the modern nation state made the empire model of governing obsolete. The Ottoman Empire could not manage its resources as efficiently, and it was in constant struggles for succession and political power. The palace intrigues of Topkapi may make for great reading, but it makes for lousy governing. BTW..Putin's apparent attempt to impose an "empire model" to Russia will also end in failure, I predict. He will seem to succeed for a while due to the strength of his personality. Eventually, he will age or die. When he goes, Russia will have the eternal succession problem of empires. Succession struggles weakened Rome, Turkey, and China. They will weaken Russia, too. One day there will be a Democratic Revolution in Russia. I just wonder how long it will take.
    2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. The profound observation of Lambert seems to be the connection between representative government, and being a Sea State. Athens, Venice, Netherlands, England, and the US I posit are too many to dismiss this proposition as coincidence. There is something about ocean borne trade that compels representative government. While, continental trade compels centralized authoritarian government. All the states involved in the Silk Road, and other trans-continental trade, were all imperial governments, or were trending that way. China, Russia, Persia, Sassanid, Byzantine, Ottoman, and so many others, all followed the same pattern. Even the states of Africa involved in the trans-Saharan caravans, all were centralized with dynastic rule. Of course, things are more complicated than that. Switzerland has representative government, and it is definitely NOT a sea power. The other observation is the ALL the examples of representative government are all in Europe. Asia and Africa had no representative governments, until UK and Netherlands brought them. Now, some Native American tribes had representative government - namely the Iroquois and Illinois Confederacies. In fact, the concept of the Eternal Flame that burns in Arlington Cemetery came from the Iroquois. The Iroquois Confederacy inspired Benjamin Franklin to propose the United States in 1756. Those Native America tribes were not sea powers in any way, yet they had a representative form of government, with no kings or inherited dynastic rule. Like I said -- history, societies, and cultures are always more complicated than they may seem at first.
    2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. What are the biggest obstacles to China's growth in power. There are several. 1. Leadership. Xi is destroying China's reputation. The CCP disavowal of treaties, laws, and agreements, make it very difficult for other nations and companies to trust agreements. 2. Geography. China is hemmed in by the inner ring of islands - Taiwan & Philippines. Of course, this is only a problem if China goes to war. In peacetime, they are no barrier to trade, commerce, and finance. 3. Economy - once a strength, now a weakness. China's export led economy is now vulnerable to other nations reducing their imports. China is already suffering. It's foreign currency reserves are tumbling. Its banks are already collapsing. This will get worse. Much worse. 4. Institutions - China has turned its back on international institutions - the UN, the World Court. By defying UNCLOS, China has set itself apart from the world community. By invading EEZ's around the world in its insatiable appetite for fish, China is creating ill will globally. Now, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, and others have to spend more on their Coast Guards to protect their own EEZ. This violation of international law puts China outside of the world club of nations. 5. Poor regional relations. One of the long term strengths of the US has been the good relations it has had with its neighbors - Canada, Mexico, Latin America, Caribbean. As China's relations with its neighbors decline, its influence, and thus its power declines. This happens even though China's military grows in strength. Soon, the Quad will grow into an anti-China military alliance. Its power will decline further. In the end, the ability of China to control the waters of the rivers of Asia will be a minor plus, not a decisive factor at all.
    1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. Shervan, I would like to hear your analysis of what the geopolitical arrangement of the world will be after the age of oil. Peak Oil Demand will happen in the next few years. After that, oil demand will decrease until it becomes inconsequential. Solid State batteries, which can be charged in 15 minutes, will be a game changer -- propelling the acceptance of electric cars to the mass public. When access to oil is no longer relevant to economies and to militaries, how will that change national politics? National rivalries? The Middle East has been the focus of geopolitics since WW2 because of oil. Will our concern for the Middle East decline to the level of concern felt for Central Africa or South America? I think so. Why would anyone care about Saudi Arabia anymore??? Why would US or Europe defend the oil states?? Being less wealthy, the Muslim states may not have the money to fund the terror groups like Boko Harram, Al Shabbab, and so many others. So, will there be a change in world terrorism?? Won't non-oil countries benefit? Could the non-oil desert states of Africa, with their constant sunshine, enable them to become rich in energy?? Could they become the next centers of manufacturing?? BTW -- IMO, manufacturing will be more dependent on access to cheap energy, than it will be to cheap labor. So, could Mauritania, Niger, Chad, Morocco, and Algeria become manufacturing behemoths? The assumptions we have operated with for so long will no longer be valid. How will this change the world?
    1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183.  @edenli9208  In the American colonies at the time, "men" would have referred any homo sapiens. Europe had gone through the Enlightenment, and had moved away from classic monotheistic theology which put people into orthodox, heretic, and non-believer categories. But, in Christianity, even non-believers were considered human. So, "men" would have included the people we call "men" today". I don't know about Muslims, they don't seem to like anyone, even themselves. You are cynical. You interpret everything negatively, even the Marshall Plan. Did the Marshall Plan help the United States? Sure it did. But, it did so by helping others, who were in dire need. People were starving in Europe. Did it have the effect of freezing Russia out of Western Europe? Yes. It was a reason we did it. But, we DID do it. Russia could have done the same for Eastern Europe. But did not. In fact, no nation in history was as generous as the US at that time. The US did not act as a conquering nation, subjugating everyone. The US favored letting businesses in those countries start, and start building wealth. You see, what differentiates the US from Russia & China, is that we don't see the world as a zero-sum game. We believe that as other countries get rich, they will buy more from us, and we both get richer. We don't resent other countries getting rich. The US did not resent China getting rich --- until it started using its wealth to bully others, threaten war, and claim rights and privileges not allowed by the UN. When China started directly threatening the US and our friends, we knew we had to change policies. Now the US is ending its trade relationship with China. Imports from China will shrink until they are are a tiny fraction of what they were. Other countries are following our lead. China's power will fade as quickly as it rose.
    1
  184. 1
  185. What do you mean "the downfall of the US military"??? Our military is a reflection of our country and society. It is created and sustained by our institutions, which includes the will of its citizens. For the military to collapse or have a downfall, that would mean a collapse of our government. Of all the countries in the world, the US is best situated geographically and politically. For instance, lets assume that the oceans rise 50 feet (much higher than predicted). Florida and other coastal areas would be submerged. The people of those areas will be welcome to relocate. Many coastal countries do not have that ability for their citizens. Bangladesh, for instance, is surrounded by India which would not welcome its refugees. China would be hard hit, as the Yellow and Pearl river deltas are low, and would cause the dislocation of about 200,000,000 people. China is not set up culturally or legally to allow for that much internal immigration. The US, on the other hand, allows and supports internal immigration. The US will need to abandon many bases, like Diego Garcia, which are barely above sea level. Our naval bases will likely have to be relocated. But, that is merely an inconvenience. There will be conflicts around the world. The US does not need to get involved in any of them. BTW -- by 2040 or 2050, our economy will have moved to renewable energy, and away from oil. We won't need to care what happens in the Middle East or other areas, to ensure our energy supply. Oil resources has been a main driver of wars for 100 years now. That is coming to an end.
    1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. BTW, I do not accept the common assertion that China's South China Sea grab is to ensure its trade routes. No one threatens its trade routes. IMO, the grab of the South China Sea is an attempt to control trade in the region and to intimidate everyone who uses it. China wants to use South China Sea trade access as a means of leverage and control over Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam. I think Xi and his backers dream of re-establishing China's middle kingdom relationships with its neighbors, and even the world. This will fail of course. The world has moved on from the days when Empires dominated the world. All power comes from economic power ultimately - after all, it takes a lot of money to sustain a military. Note how economic power also creates social power. Look at how American rap has gone global. As India develops, Bollywood is a growing cultural influence. The world knows Korean K-Pop. So, power has many facets. Xi's focus on confrontation and bullying will have severe blowback, I expect. Also, China's debt colonization of countries will also fail miserably. England took over Egypt that way. It didn't last. The world community will not allow China to put colonizing troops into Africa or India Ocean countries. Without occupying troops, nothing prevents those countries from merely defaulting on their debts to China. Remember how the US ended Britain's influence in Egypt in the 1950's by stopping its military??? What do you think will happen when China tries to enforce its domination with military force??? It will be stopped, I believe. China is at the apex of its power, IMO. Xi's policies have started a process that will degrade China's economy and power. Once its veneer of power is stripped away, its decline will be swift.
    1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1