Youtube comments of Andrew Sarantakes (@andrewsarantakes639).
-
252
-
112
-
95
-
87
-
77
-
74
-
72
-
72
-
56
-
Thanks, as always, for laying out this topic in such a balanced academic fashion. Awesome content!
It seems the people of Mayotte indicated their desire to remain as part of France. Despite international bodies to enforce their concept of a "geographical political construct," the people of Mayotte chose the pathway they wanted to follow & remained part of France.
In an effort to maintain the rule of law, France has exercised it sovereign right to territorial integrity by starting to remove migrates who are, in fact, in France illegally.
As a political entity, France governs itself as it chooses. Laws are and should be the foundation to an orderly society. Without laws, anarchy results. Despite the unfortunate optics of this situation in Mayotte, France is moving to maintain stability of its society by enforcement of French laws in removing people who, by their own initiative, entered Mayotte illegally. The optics are bad, but if enforcement is not established, a worse situation will develop. Politics is a difficult Art, but France, through its own democratic processes, is attempting to conduct the Art of politics. Thank you again for the outstanding content you provide. Your efforts help to inform & educate such a vast number of people is appreciated.
👍
54
-
53
-
52
-
47
-
44
-
42
-
39
-
35
-
33
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
Excellent issue to discuss. The topic of US presidents commenting on the "free riding" nature of NATO allies goes back to President Eisenhower in the 1950s. Thirty years after that another example is in the 1980s when NATO was facing the massive & real threat of the Soviet army across the IGB, many NATO nations for example had less then a week or two weeks of war stock ammunition ready to be used to respond to a Soviet attack. So the concept of "free ridership" started when NATO was established.
To paraphrase Dr Mearshimer "states do not have alliances, they have individual intrests." This reality needs to be an understood fact in a pragmatic analysis & assessment of US-NATO relations.
The US has global commitments and for example Belgium & Portugal do not, so of course those nations will never spend to the percentage of GDP on Defense as the US does. However, we can look at what happened with Defense spending in the Baltics & Poland after 2014 & 2022. Their rapid expansion on defense spending as well as significant policy changes show their seriousness of demonstrating to the US their efforts to provide for their defense and not being seen as a "free rider".
Bottom line nations such as Germany, Portugal or Belgium have & are making conscious choices not to meet agreeded levels of spending. These are internal political choices these nations are making, thus it communicates to others their lack of commitment to collective defense to deter.
Trump's political allegorical story at a campaign event is essential politcal "red meat" being said in order to win the primary election. In reality the long held Jeffersonian political philosophy of isolationism is foolish given the realities of US history and economics in the world today. And to be honest the US doesnt take its own defense responsibilities serious when it is relying on a failed volunteer military service model versus consription. This, like some NATO spending levels, it is a internal political decision the US makes which absolutely shows the complete lack in the US body politic to provide for its own defense needs. The American people, like spending levels in some NATO nations, are "free riders" in their comfortable illusion that military service is important "as long as it is not me serving"
Again pragmatic analysis is necessary and seeing Trump is a theatrical stage actor replicating the "crazy man Nixon" role. Him playing this role is intended to get NATO nations to make different internal political choices.
18
-
Excellent lay down on all the historical events. It seems Turkey has long & deep political reasons for all their border wars in has been engaging in the failed states of Iraq & Syria. It seems Turkey's view is a real fear of the their state completely falling apart as their neighbors to the south. It also seems the Kurds & Turkey have a true politcal conflict, given it duration of decades it has persisted, and as Clauswitz stipulates this is a politcal conflict difference that is being adjudicted in another form (with violence).. Given that both Turkey & Kurds have been engaged in solving their political differences through the violence of an armed conflict, we can predict Turkey will conduct a cross border military operations into Syria as a way to "Manage their Kurdish problem" . This politcal conflict is a test of "Will". Turkey attemps to use the minimalist approach over the decades by trying to "Manage" the situation with the Kurds. While Kurdish politcal actors push for an independent Kurdishstan. So it seems that Kurdish political will is stronger then Turkey's. Time has proven the politcal situation can not be solved with out violence. Turkey's view is for the survival of their ethnic politcal state of Turkey, while Kurdish people have the politcal goal of an independent ethnic Kurdish nation state. So we can postulate this conflict will persist for decades to come, because both sides can not give in to the other's political goal. This is a frustrating situation because it from a geograhical perspective, viewed through a politcal lense, neither side wants to lose. Turkey's fear is of a "Keystone effect" that if land claimed by the Kurdish people is allowed to break away into a new Kurdish state, land claimed by the Armenians is next, then European Turkey would come after that, with all ethnic Turks being completely ethnically clensed from what we know as "European Turkey", thus the future of the survival of the Turkish state is a real fear of Turkish people/political actors. So we can assess that Turkey will use aggressive military force to "Manage" their Kurdish problem. In the current devolution of international politics we see in the world today, external bodies can not prevent nation states from using violence to solve their politcal differences. Thanks for your great work in providing a positive platform for dialog on issues. 👍
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Thanks for your very fair & diligent efforts to frame a very difficult aspect of international relations. As the baby boomer generation in the United States ages away, the contentious paradigm of "Vietnam War Syndrom" has moved into political obscurity in the American body politic. As Vietnam War veterans, both Senators McCain & Kerry's efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam helped bury to political ghosts of that era in the US.
As an American, I can say, culturally, the bitter divide in society over "Vietnam" is gone. Most people in the US arent even aware the Cold War and the war in Vietnam as a subset of the bi-polar world conflict. However, I am not sure how the people of Vietnam see the legacy of that conflict. But it seems despite Clinton, Bush, Obama & even Trump efforts to have positive engagement with Vietnam, it seems that Vietnam works to be publicly engaging with the US, but the historical/cultural/political scars are too deep there for them to fully partner with the US against the PRC as Japan does.
Excellent content as always
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Outstanding assessment of relations between south Korea and Japan. This dynamic is quite stark given how other countries can move forward after bad relations, as an example, the dynamic between Germany & France. As a first hand observer in Korea for many years it seems apparent that left wing political ideologues are most responsible for fanning the "flames of victimhood" in order to gain short term political gains due to the dynamic as they view right wing political adherents as the political progeny of collaborators with the Japanese colonial administrators. Additionally, a central aspect of Korean culture is pride and saving face. This cultural aspect, along with political dynamics in Korea, forms the decades long diplomatic road block. These factors combined with Japanese shame & embarrassment of their colonial history creates the cognitive desire to ignore the uncomfortable aspects of Japanese history, and their desire not to feel shame. Thanks for your balance objective analysis. As in any international relationship, all participants' actions contribute to the paradigm of different perspectives. Most likely because of cultural change in Germany, that nation has politically fully embraced the a new universal cultural concept of shame for their actions in the 1940s, but in Japan this cultural shift did not occur, so it could be postulated the different US occupational policies in Japan from Germany did not facilitate a cultral shift in the Japanese people. Again, thanks for your excellent work!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Excellent historical assessment to help everyone understand a complex situation. It seems this will be a long term debate. But it is important to understand the EU is a Cold War construct to deter conflict, like NATO, and ultimately as a counter balance against the Soviet Union's expansionist idology.
But the EU as a political organ evolved over time, and as a non-Briton it seems from an outside prospective the, centralization of power to essentially another soverign entity is what culturally is incongruent with most Britons. The physical proximity of continental Europe makes economic sense, however cultural geography of an "island nation" has shaped political sensibilities of the United Kingdom.
The EU is an economic partnership, not a cultural body, thus its inability to be fully accepted by people in United Kingdom. The manifestations of cultural through physical, psychological and behavioral constructs, as well as historical events over centuries, seem to create an incompatible in the EU ever becoming a "United States of Europe".
Dictates from a higher or removed political body always create the concept of "resistance" in humans. The process of checks and balances with the separation of powers in the US helps to calm the human nature to "resist" because people believe they have agency and are not being "directed" by a body in which they do not have agency in or inputs into statutes, regulation and polices created which impact them. So the cultural, historical & political realities of Briton would indicate reentering into the EU as doubtful enterprise even given the economic benifts it would provide. Thanks so much for the excellent content you provide. The volume of time and efforts you put into creating content is very much appreciated.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Excellent analysis! It is truly a pandora's box. Putin politically will not accept a defeat in Ukraine in any way, and now since the annexation of Ukrainian territory, he most likely for domestic political reasons, has intentionally painted Russia into a corner so victory is assured. From a Conventional conflict perspective, Putin know he can win an attritional war with Ukraine and he most likely believes time will cause European/NATO's resolve to collapse. Ukraine can not win a war of attrition, and bluntly Putin knows no NATO country has the political will to directly engage him militarily. Simply put Putin WILL use battlefield tactical nuclear weapons if needed, thus he wins; but he is playing a long game conventionally, which he knows he will win.
Mass media or political actors around the world focusing on Russian Tactical or Operational set backs is quite foolish. This is a Strategic conflict. And Strategically Russia has the capability, and more importantly, the political will to win. In the 1940s small little Germany easily, at theTactical & Operational level, defeated the Red Army twicein two years, but Russia (Soviet Union) fought a Strategic & attritional conflict, and won. The Russian way of war is the use of Attrition and Mass. A Ukrainian opertional gain is good for short term political optics, but the Mass of Russia's capability has not yet been shown.
Thanks again for your excellent assessment of issues involving nations & politics. Amazing work and keep up your efforts to articulate facts about situations in a true academic way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JamesKerLindsay
The situation is tragic, and the lessons of 1938 are clear, aggression unchecked leads to more aggression. That is the fear we all know that with Russia seen as the winner in this conflict, will turn international politics upside down, with interstate conflicts rising again to be the norm. We all dont want that to be the outcome, but deterrance was ambiguous, thus the conflict happened.
I was a career professional soldier, and the hard cold military assessment is that given the attritional nature the conflict has become, the weight of demographic numbers make it impossible for Ukrine to accomplish its political goals through military means. The historical analog is just like when the German army threw itself against robust prepared defenses at the Battle of Kursk in 1943, the ability to win the operation victory was impossible and the strategic outcome was obvious.
It is shocking and sad to see that only a few NATO nations see the reality of Russian aggression with Poland & the tiny Baltic republics taking the situation seriously.
Poland for example has aggressively moved to 4% of GDP spending on defense, while other NATO nations seem to see the "situation in Ukrine as manageable", which is dangerous. But the seemingly addiction to the post Cold War Peace Dividend in Europe is not reality now, and without creating solid deterrance, more conflicts will occur.
The shocking realities of Ukrainian losses have been extremely well hidden, but the level of losses are shocking. Given the lack in the ability of the Ukrainians to execute operational art to achieve decisive results on the battlefield, the Russians have the advantage.
The situation is beyond tragic, but political failures happened. At this point the way to decisively prevent more future conflicts is to fall back onto the Cold War paradigm of robust deterrance. In jest we can say "West Germany from 1987 called me and said deterrance works". Poland today is effectively applying this strategy & it will prove to be successful.
The financial cost of deterrance is not cheap, but compared to the costs in blood & treasure in a conflict, investing in robust deterrance has historically proven to be successful as well as financial cheaper.
We all want the same outcome, but this conflict is appalling & sickening to me in levels I feel I can't express in words. A good commander has wisdom and understands the realities of his limitations. The outcome is horrible, but to me, the military realities of the situation are clear.
As always, thanks for providing a platform for positive dialog.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James I am shocked to see as you said the low views on this topic, when this should be the topic of highest interests.
Bottom line is that this war is going to end, and to create the conditions of success for reconstruction must be discussed. The EU is the only body/nation which has not been a participant in the historical events in Holy Land since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 & the establishment of Isreal in 1948. The example we have historically is Germany, which was successfully rebuilt post 1945. The scale of destruction of Germany in 1945 is beyond compassion to the small geograpic enclave of Gaza, so it is in scope of the possible for the EU to accomplish this critical task. The EU as an impartial body can successfully set the conditions of success. In regard to this difficult conflict, "good fences make good neighbors" and the EU can give the people of Gaza a way forward to success. The US, UN, Isreal & Arab nations all have too much "baggage" in this region, so for a highest chance of success the EU is the only choice, any other will be more of the same.
Warfare, despite its brutality, is a tool of statecraft and from a realist perspective through a lens of Clauswitz, "war is politics in a different form." As stated previously, this war is going to end, and a successful reconstruction effort will prevent yet another flaring up of violence in the future.
It is best to work to solve this "political issue" after the kinetics have ceased through an impartial body working to eliminate theological influences which are constantly present. And the political tools the EU can bring to bear in a reconstruction environment can be a pathway to success. Thanks for presenting this vital topic in the podcast.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This topic will direct the course of political events well into the future. A paradigmal shift has occured.. Historical parallels are all here for scholars to analyze with poor myopic short term domestic poltical decisions being made by all political players over many years. The lessons of 1938 have been covieniantly ignored... Bottom line is the need to apply Clauswitzian theoritical model to this situation. This is politics in another form. And when a political difference that cant be bridged with diplomacy, then politics becomes kinetic. Subsequently it becomes an issue of which side is willing, or able, to expend more blood & treasure.
This is now a war of attrition, and it is beyond the capability of Ukraine to accomplish any type of "victory" no matter how much material other nations provide.
The results of an attritional based war are known, the simplest example to use is Germany, a country of 80,000,000 did not have the capacity to defeat the Soviet Union, a country of 190,000,000 which had every advantage in all metrics.
Political leaders in Ukraine will have to be pragmatic, and realize a stalemate is better then a complete defeat.
For the world as a whole ignoring the lessons of 1938 created this situation, the concept of "aggression" has won; and this is the paradimal shift that sadly cant be undone... Moving forward the tool that must be used to prevent more conflict is real and robust deterrance. Deterrance works as evidenced by succes of 41 years in Europe during the Cold War. Four decades of paying for deterrance is far cheaper then fighting one year in a high intensity conflict as measured in both lives and treasure.
Thank you for presenting this topic in a true academic way. Political passions create bias & blind people. But cool analytical academic assessment is critical to finding a pathway forward. Thanks again for your great work!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As the internet joke goes on about in reference Cuba & Canada, "Justin Castro" as the Prime Minister in Canada will of course make put Candians in a positive light in the eyes of Cubans.. (LOL).
But on a serious note it would make sense that Cuban-Americans would be brash in their display of being American because it could be seen as a chauvinistic display of their choice to display to Cubans in Cuba the economic success the expats have experienced by showing they have returned, they have enjoyed success in a capitalist nation, while the remaining people of Cuba focused on the doctire of socialism & the cult of personality surrounding Castro over the decades have left Cuba a poor nation.
As a component of the Cold War Cuba could be seen to be like the DDR, when in the war of savagery brutality both sides inflicted upon each other in the 1940s, communism was imposed upon the people in eastern Germany. So in the American body politic people subconsciously see that communism was imposed upon the Cuban people by a charismatic revolutionary leader, not by choice of the Cubans.
As a somewhat frozen component of the Cold War, the US has, as a matter of law, place economy sanctions on Cuba, and until that chages we can forcast that Cuba will be locked out of economic growth and the political realities of the political power Cuban-Americans hold in the state of Florida, as well as the critical political power the state of Florida has in national electorical politics, Cuban will be kept out of world economic activities.
As your observations in Cuba there has been a deep cultural change and socialism is the political culture in Cuba, they will not throw off their form of government/economic system they have and will not like the former Soviet bloc nations in the Warsaw Pact have done since 1991, because the Soviets imposed communism upon eastern Europe, but Cuba did by a popular revolution embrased socialism. So Cuba, like north Korea will move forward as it chooses without the external influences of foreign nations. Thanks again for the topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1