I find Zeihan very interesting and thought provoking when it comes to economics, demographics, supply chains, etc; I do not know of anyone else I have heard speak that has the breadth and detailed depth of knowledge in those departments.  When it comes to military stuff though, in my opinion he is pretty reductive and click baity. 

I will say that I always thought it was a mistake to expand NATO eastward.  Including the Baltic states and the lower Balkans adds nothing to the security of the west, and moving units and weapon systems into them is just unnecessarily aggressive.  We should have either let Russia join, or encouraged the eastern European countries to form their own mutual defense block, with their independence guaranteed by both the West and Russia.  As it is we are proving once again that it is much cheaper to simply trade for stuff rather than to fight over it. 

That being said I in no way support the invasion of Ukraine.  There is so much noise and propoganda surrounding it, I honestly cannot tell what was hoped to even be accomplished.  I feel like European reliance on Russian gas was a pretty solid guarantee that the West was not going to start anything.  I get that Russia was feeling pressured, but this course of action seems almost guaranteed to make sure everyone lines up against it, even if it had worked.

JesseH1234 said:

I will say that I always thought it was a mistake to expand NATO eastward.  Including the Baltic states and the lower Balkans adds nothing to the security of the west...

You're kinda missing the point.  Including the Baltics and the lower Balkans adds considerably to the security of those countries.  They asked to join NATO due to firsthand experience of being subject to Moscow's rule.

JesseH1234 said:

...and moving units and weapon systems into them is just unnecessarily aggressive. 

That's absurd.  Exactly how would other NATO members train with the armed forces of those countries without moving units and weapon systems into them?

JesseH1234 said:

We should have either let Russia join, or encouraged the eastern European countries to form their own mutual defense block, with their independence guaranteed by both the West and Russia.

Oh, good grief.  NATO was formed to oppose Russia.  It would've been quite irrational to let Russia join an alliance against it.  Especially since the reason Russia wanted to join was to cause the dissolution of NATO by showing the organization was no longer necessary.

And a "mutual defense block" of the tiny eastern European nations would not have been anywhere near strong enough to defend themselves from Russian invasion, as demonstrated by recent events in Ukraine. 

Also, such a "guarantee" of independence would be worthless.  The West could not guarantee that independence any more than they were able to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty, and Russia clearly would have no compunction against invading any of those countries, as shown by its history from 1956 through 2023.

JesseH1234 said:

As it is we are proving once again that it is much cheaper to simply trade for stuff rather than to fight over it. 

Well, comrade Putin obviously doesn't care how many Russian soldiers he gets killed, as long as his goal of rebuilding the Russian empire is achieved.

JesseH1234 said:

That being said I in no way support the invasion of Ukraine.  There is so much noise and propoganda surrounding it, I honestly cannot tell what was hoped to even be accomplished.  I feel like European reliance on Russian gas was a pretty solid guarantee that the West was not going to start anything.

Indeed.  There was no reason to think that either Europe or the US planned to invade Russia.  Unfortunately, it seems that Russian leaders are inflicted with institutional paranoia to the point of insanity.  I guess they imagine that another Napolean or Hitler is just waiting for Russia to become distracted by engaging in trade before marching on Moscow again.

JesseH1234 said:

I get that Russia was feeling pressured, but this course of action seems almost guaranteed to make sure everyone lines up against it, even if it had worked.

The only way that I can see Russian leaders feeling pressured is if Zeihan is right about them wanting to "make Russia great again" through conquest, and the need to do so while their demographics allow it to be done.  Because the Russian aggression against Ukraine -- and Russian threats against Sweden and Finland -- have definitely had just the opposite results of what Russia wanted.  Screw 'em.

But, to end on a note of humor, here's a comment from the Russian Foreign Minister which is absolutely hilarious:

"You know, the war which we are trying to stop and which was launched against us..."

“their independence guaranteed by both the West and Russia.”
 

That’s why Ukraine gave up their Soviet nukes. Look what the guarantee from Russia was worth.

I am just sure that if a clearly hostile Russia was establishing a large, nuclear armed military alliance throughout Latin America, including stationing Mig-31 squadrons and S-300 batteries in Mexico, then we would have nothing to say about it.  I would suggest you are falling into the same logical loop that led Mr. Putin to do what he is doing, reenacting old patterns for the sake of reenacting them.  "Nato was formed to oppose Russia"..... I do not even know where to START.  (get it?)

Again, I am not saying I support Russia in this conflict.  At all.  I would say that Putin played everything 100% wrong; in fact it would be hard to ask that he do a better job of playing into the hands of the American security establishment, pushing everyone straight into our arms.  I would have recommended a "Gandhi with lots of nukes" approach if I had been asked. 

Max, let me start by saying I really do respect you.  I have been following your content for perhaps 20 years.  Your series on "Forgotten Weapons" was amazing.

That being said, you are using a blend of a strawman/non sequitur/ad hominem fallacies.  Yes, the US has done a lot of shady stuff.  Some might even say questionable.  Perhaps gauche.  However, that does not mean killing thousands of Ukranians is the right thing to do.  \

The move would have been to play the pacifist, the humanitarian, who also holds the keys to European energy, economy, and a crap ton of nuclear weapons.

I am genuinely curious though: what do you see as the way forward?  I realize that you may or may not be somewhat limited to what you can say, but I really would like to know what a positive outcome or an agreeable compromise would look like. 

PS-If I am violating some don't-get-too-real clause, feel free to delete this.  I haven't been here in a while and I have a lot of questions is all. 

JesseH1234 said:

I am just sure that if a clearly hostile Russia was establishing a large, nuclear armed military alliance throughout Latin America, including stationing Mig-31 squadrons and S-300 batteries in Mexico, then we would have nothing to say about it.

I am certain we would have quite a lot to say about it, but I very much doubt that we would invade Canada in response.

How about sticking to the subject (Russian aggression against Ukraine) instead of coming up with a farcical hypothetical?

JesseH1234 said:

I would suggest you are falling into the same logical loop that led Mr. Putin to do what he is doing, reenacting old patterns for the sake of reenacting them.  "Nato was formed to oppose Russia"..... I do not even know where to START.  (get it?)

Precisely what logical loop do you think I am falling into?  Are you implying that NATO was not created to oppose Russia?

I am not sure what Canada has to do with this analogy, as that has been a peaceful relationship for about 200 years?  Maybe there was a little scrap in the PNW in the 1840s, but I cannot be bothered to look it up.   They are in NAFTA, NATO, 5 Eyes, integrated into NORAD.  They're our bestest little bro, and have gone to war along side us just about everywhere for over a century.  They look like us, talk like people from Minnesota, give us shale oil and maple syrup. What is not to like? 

I used Mexico because it is on our border and our history has been, shall we say, mixed. 

Re the "loop," there used to be this thing called the Soviet Union, which was the embodiment of this thing called World Communism.  It was a very different and much scarier beast than the Russian Federation.  To the extent one thinks in terms of some sort of overarching historical theme, ie Russian Federation=Soviet Union=Tsarist Empire, I would say one is giving in to the same sort of jingoism and nostalgia that Mr. Putin is indulging in. 

What really fascinates me are the similarities between the current Russian rhetoric and certain Nazi themes; there used to be German minority populations all over Eastern Europe that needed to be brought into the fold, plus the whole reestablishing the HRE/2nd Reich thing.  The more things change the more they stay the same.  "Stuff happened in the past" and "this used to be """"ours""""", etc.

Again I am not supporting what Putin is doing.  I am simply saying we could have avoided 20 years of overtly hostile diplomatic maneuvering and military positioning.  Maybe it would not have changed anything with regard to Mr. Putin's adventures, but it would not have damaged our strategic position an inch had we not.

JesseH1234 said:

I am not sure what Canada has to do with this analogy...  I used Mexico because it is on our border and our history has been, shall we say, mixed.

Your analogy is Russian units and weapon systems stationed in Mexico (on US border) = NATO units and weapon systems stationed in the Baltics (on Russia's border).

Since Russia responded to what you call NATO's "unnecessarily aggressive" actions by invading Ukraine, the only equivalent in your flawed analogy is invading Canada.

JesseH1234 said:

Re the "loop," there used to be this thing called the Soviet Union, which was the embodiment of this thing called World Communism.  It was a very different and much scarier beast than the Russian Federation.  To the extent one thinks in terms of some sort of overarching historical theme, ie Russian Federation=Soviet Union=Tsarist Empire, I would say one is giving in to the same sort of jingoism and nostalgia that Mr. Putin is indulging in.

Nostalgia has zilch to do with it.  The name of the country has changed, but it's still the same people, with the same world view.  When the Russian Federation was the Soviet Union, Putin was communist KGB.  His acts of aggression against neighboring countries differ from his Soviet predecessors only in being more deadly and destructive.

YouTube

Ukraine War: Drone footage shows Marinka devastation

Marinka, a city in eastern Ukraine, has been devastated by ongoing fighting between Russian forces aligned with Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) separatists a...

JesseH1234 said:

Again I am not supporting what Putin is doing.  I am simply saying we could have avoided 20 years of overtly hostile diplomatic maneuvering and military positioning.  Maybe it would not have changed anything with regard to Mr. Putin's adventures, but it would not have damaged our strategic position an inch had we not.

IMO, that is an unwarranted conclusion.  If Russia had been allowed to join NATO and succeeded in destroying that organization, I think the strategic position of both the US and Europe would likely have been severely damaged, and Russia would now be completely unchallenged in that region.

stancrist said:

Your analogy is Russian units and weapon systems stationed in Mexico (on US border) = NATO units and weapon systems stationed in the Baltics (on Russia's border). Since Russia responded to what you call NATO's "unnecessarily aggressive" actions by invading Ukraine, the only equivalent in your flawed analogy is invading Canada

Let's play it again. Suppose Mexico has a civil unrest, and with direct Chinese approval and support ousts the existing government via the clearly non-democratic procedures.  Then it  installs the new, left-wing government, which, among other things, plans to allow Chinese military bases on its soil. Are you implying that in this case US would leave the Mexico alone?

Or you prefer more "precautionary" actions like the Operation Condor from the 1970s and 1980s?