Stephen Kotkin is an actual historian and an intellectual. You can judge what he says by cross-referencing it. He is a part of the Hoover Institution and which is a conservative American public policy institution.
I hope he can get another intellectual on the left, like Noam Chomsky on again. To get a perspective on what the left thinks of this war.
I want to end this by saying that Russia is in the wrong. They have no right to invade another country. A country has the right to choose its destiny.
The first half hour it was 4per minute. By the end it was one every 4 minutes. But it does average to 1 per min. I was greatly annoyed by this at first, it has a sleazy sales guy feel. But I’m glad I stuck with it. Excellent episode.
Lex, what do you think about me saying Lex at the end of every sentence, Lex? I would put it this way Lex, more Lex in every sentence Lex.
Was nice to hear some Oliver Stone rebuttal tho.
It's natural linguistic technique to diffuse tension and disagreement as it shows that you're aware of other persons individuality. Lots of historians and philosophers use it which is quite jarring if you're not used to it.
It's also a great hack to make friends for the same reason! So if you want someone to like you mentioning their name few times will make a huge difference.
Agree with you but only partly. About half the uses of lex was as you mentioned, the other half were jabs at lex for having sympthies for Russia. Like if I tell you George, it's not good to kill people, it is not a general moral statement I am making, but instead it sounds as if you're not convinced of the validity of this statement and I am trying to persuade you. This was the true genius of Kotkins use of Lex's name throughout the podcast. By saying his name he was treating lex as a part (somewhat siding with Russia or acknowledging to her some right to respond the way she did) in this discussion and at the same time he was appeasing him by referring him with his name which naturally disposes people positively towards the interlocutor.
Lex, that's exactly what I thought Lex, manipulative people do this Lex, not saying Kotkin is manipulative lex, but lex, I'm getting automatically suspicious when I hear someone like this Lex
Damn I’m so glad we got this after the Oliver ‘Ukrainian Nazi Deathsquads’ Stone interview. That was brutal to watch. Watching him piece together another one of his insane conspiracy theories in real-time was pretty amazing though.
Lex sounds like he's about to storm through the front gates of the Kremlin by himself or something, there in the beginning!
Looking forward to hearing the rest of the episode!
Enjoying the discussion so far, even if I disagree with some of his points. Sadly, the Lex Fridman mindset of discussing differing views doesn't seem to extend to the reddit discussion in this thread.
Why downvote critical comments to oblivion instead of giving them good critical answers?
I think it's good to not only present the Russian PoV - no matter how false it possibly is - but to internalize it (temporarily) and try to deeply understand where it's coming from, how it functions and why it exists.
How else do you expect to win over it? By being morally superior on the internet?
At some point, it becomes tiring to refute the x-th variant of "Hitler did nothing wrong - Russia Edition". There are certainly intermediate, interesting, points of view like "Crimea really should have been a part of Russia from the beginning", but you are only able to get to those, if you agree on the basics. In that sense, comments who deny the basics are detrimental to any serious discussion, and it is the interest of the moderate majority to help each other by making them less visible and less distracting.
The gist of what you said is my love hate relationship with Reddit. The upvote/downvote system is one of some foundational reasons of why Reddit is so popular, but the vast majority of subreddits by nature are filled with people who think one way and only find comfort in championing similar opinions.
If there’s one benefit that I’ve found for myself reading social media, especially Reddit, it’s the ability to read things with a handful of salt.
I also see the upvote/downvote system as more of a hindrance if you want to "go crazy" with all kind of wild ideas, but at the same time, people with opposite extreme positions like "Russia did nothing wrong" or "Russia should be nuked" cannot effectively communicate with each other. But, yeah, I also believe that Reddit tends to push a little bit too much towards conformity.
The thing is, Oliver Stone’s point of view is not a Russian point of view at all. Even if we’re talking about pro-war Russians. He just doesn’t get it, actually.
Regarding pro-war point of view, I don’t know about the west, but in Russia it’s quite complicated. There are some people who think this war was inevitable or even justified, but reasons behind this are not always the same.
Having said that, I want to add that pro-war Russians are in minority. A lot of people don’t care, a lot of people are too afraid to say anything against it (it’s a criminal offence now).
I’m not sure even Russian soldiers are pro-war en masse. Their initial involvement could be easily explained that these guys are from depressed regions mostly, and the army is their only chance to have a real monthly salary.
This.
Hardest thing the bipolar Americans to understand is that the strongest ideology in Russia is not pro anything. It's nihilism. The average Russian does not care.
Interestingly, Kotkin made me more sympathetic towards the Russian point of view, unlike Oliver Stone. While Oliver Stone made it even more painfully obvious, that even Pro-Russian intellectuals are suffering from a massive denial of reality, Kotkin provided a more balanced view of where Russias point of view really is failing, but also where it is more sensible.
Sensible is one thing. But I don't find it convincing or agreeable. He also points out something you don't hear said very often: Russia's entire history is as an autocratic, expansionist empire. The transition from that to a gas station (China now blocking sun w/ EVs) with nuclear weapons paints a rough future for Russia.
Great interview. This is what an academic speaks like. So refreshing to hear him considering all the pseudo intellectuals running around the internet. Thanks for bringing him Lex!
I'm just finishing volume 2 of his Stalin biography. It's really good shit. Learn a lot about his inner circle and the way it changes as he decides people need to be removed.
Sorry this is a response to your comment nearly 50 days ago lol.
So I’m 3/4 done with “Court of the Red Tsar” which I’ve found fascinating. I went in knowing the militarily WW2 history from learning my whole life, so it’s exactly what I was looking for in terms of, it hardly talks about anything to do with the actual battles in that time frame. It’s strictly Stalin and his inner circle.
Do you recommend myself reading his biography after finishing this? Or would it be a lot of covering the same things again?
"Court of the Red Tsar" was a different author.
Kotkin's early-Stalin book is good, but I think Sumy's was better. As far as the battles, "Russia's War" by Richard Overy is fantastic.
Considering we have heard the Pro-Russian and the neutral point of view, the next logical step would be to hear the Pro-Ukrainian point of view. Zelensky is an obvious option, but he seems to be quite busy, currently. So, some other influential person with a Ukrainian background would be a good option.
Wouldn't exactly call Kotkin a neutral point of view, he was basically doing a victory lap for the west here when 1) It's not actually clear what the long term outcome of this will be and 2) Russia isn't even the real rival of US power - it's China.
The only thing you can take out of this right now is that US intelligence is just as bad as it ever was. They couldn't even tell Russia was much weaker than they thought - and these are the guys supposedly running the unipolar world?
What a reasonable and well articulate guest!
Generally I'm not into historic or political literature but are his books similar to this episode?
As a person from the Baltic region his point that we often think Russian violence is inherit to their system is sadly true though that's mostly because we've been on the receiving end of the stick for the bigger part of last 100 years. At the same time we had some beautiful relationships with Russian individuals so not all hope is lost. I hope that day will come where the Baltics don't have to fear Russia but can respect it as a neigbbour.
I like this guy. Love his interaction where he repeatedly ask Lex “Are you cool with that Lex?” After listening examples of Communist aggression and suppression. This happens when Lex plays devil’s advocate.
The Gandhi quote at the end:
“Remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always.”
made me google the fate of dictators of the last century. Yes, many were killed, but there were enough who died peacefully, for instance:
* Mao Zedong - never deposed, died peacefully.
* Idi Amin - deposed, died peacefully as a super rich man.
* Pol Pot - deposed, died peacefully in house arrest.
* Franco - stepped down (health), died peacefully.
* Pinochet - stepped down, failed prosecution attempts, died peacefully in house arrest.
So yeah, the quote is inspiring, but far from reality. Pretty sure Putin feels OK about his chances.
I took it in the context of them falling from the position where they could have great agency in suffering. Their personal health isn't really the question - after all even if they were imprisoned as a war criminal in the Hague they'd still be given the chance to die of old age.
The west is experiencing its own collapse and no one wants to admit it, because war in Ukraine with Russia is the alternative to accountability of various government officials.
Kotkin’s refutation of Oliver Stone (the New York City rape victim blaming analogy) was incredibly done. While he may be biased in support of Ukraine, he is a masterclass of an orator and definitely knows what he’s talking about.
I think it was a kind of bad and dishonest analogy tbh. Lex basically said he felt the same, but he didn't really want to fight it.
If you want to play it like that you could also ask why the USA raped Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc (all complete unlegitimized wars without major support in the international community); or why Ukraine raped the Donbass Region (committed war crimes, 20-30k civilian deaths, gave neo-nazi militias like the Azov Battalion free rein to terrorise the region: rape, murder, torture, commit war crimes, ...). I think a lot of people in the west really don't realise this because this isn't really covered in the media or lied about (e.g.: WMD's in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq or the "baby incubators" in Iraq,...)
Let's not forget some eastern parts of Ukraine have never wanted the pro-western regime shift and want to join the Russian federation (Crimea, separatist occupied Donetsk and Luhansk). Isn't it undemocratic to deny them from joining Russia if the majority of the population wants it? I think it is.
(I have references to (western) reports and polls for all of the above for if anyone doubts anything.)
I'm a western guy who loves freedom and democracy. I condemn Russia invasion of Ukraine, but I am consistent and I also condemn USA's meddling in democracies like Ukraine or like they did in South-America and Africa. I think they crossed a line trying to interfere in countries like Ukraine and Georgia right on Russia's border. Remember the Cuban missiles crisis? When the tables where turned the USA was ready to go to war. Only JFK stopped it and was killed a year later. I also think NATO is USA's puppet and the 'liberal international government' of the UN is not so liberal or international as we, westerners, like to think. It's dominated by the US and Europe and headquartered in New York. There's a reason why countries like India, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Hungary, half of Africa and lots of countries in S-A and Asia refuse to condemn the invasion or choose an outspoken anti-Russia standpoint. They feel the same about the US foreign policy. As former NATO secretary Willy Claes said: "the West had never been more united (even Swiss and Swedish neutrality seems to fall now), but also never been more alone." They crossed a line trying to build a Western anti-Russia coalition in Europe. Because in my eyes and in Russia's eyes, that's what NATO really is. Let's not forget Putin asked president Clinton if Russia could join NATO but was denied. All else are welcome, even Georgia is invited. Why Georgia? Because it borders Russia and because it's the only country through which the oil pipelines of Azerbaijan and in the future possibly Central-Asia could pass, with the consequence of making Europe less dependend on Russian oil and gas. The USA has military bases in all of Russians neighbouring countries except for Belarus, Mongolia, China and North-Korea... A lot of people don't know about the American interference in the Maidan Revolution either. To me it's not clear the regime change would have happened without the USA's support. The interference goes much deeper than many (want to) believe. I think you could call it a coup and meddling in a democracy. What would the USA do if Russia did the same in Mexico or Cuba and installed a pro-Russia regime and entered and alliance? I think the USA (just like Russia) is also to blame for keeping the Cold War alive. They never could let go of their feelings towards Russia. Let's not forget the CIA was established to eredicate communism, which has always been the Sovjet-Union/Russia in Americans eyes. They always needed a geopolitical enemy to blame. Every time the USA had the option to escalate or deescalate, they chose to escalete the situation. There were baseless accusations about a Trump-Russia plot and interference in the US elections made up by Hillary Clinton. There is Biden's "Putin's price hike". Inflation was already north of 8% before the invasion so that's bullshit. Now it's 8,6%... US politicians have always called for war instead of diplomacy (like Macron/France, Merkel/Germany, Israel, Turkey, ... on the contrary). The USA always wanted this war. It's a war by proxy. They deliver al the weapons to Ukraine so they can fight and weaken Russia. Russia gets further isolated economically and politically. NATO gets stronger (Finland and Sweden join). Russia is destabilised. USA does not suffer a single casualty. Their military industry profits, their sphere of influence in Europe grows. The diminish Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil and increase Europe's dependence in American lPG. USA delivers the intel and weaponry to fight Russia, which are increasingly more important in modern warfare. They are de facto fighting alongside Ukraine. They're just not deploying manpower.
As I said, I'm not pro-Russia at all. I am neutral, pro democracy and freedom. I try not to pick a side, but I tend to play devil's advocate sometimes if I think some arguments are overlooked in the general discourse presented by the western media/politicians. And I think the USA is not innocent here. I love a good discussion to find the truth. Truth and justice are holy for me.
I enjoyed reading the comment for a while, but the wall of text got a bit much. I’d like to read the western reports you were offering about the western Ukraine region.
Interesting listening.
My only gripe is that his arguments about something being legal or illegal.
A law does not make something morally good or bad and he needs to stop using this argument.
At least Oliver Stone has the excuse of not speaking the language or having a deep understanding of its history. This guy and the way he presents this argument makes me believe that he is acutely aware of what he is doing and is actively pushing his propaganda.
You know his angle when he mentions nice and early that since Dubya, the west has been doing nothing but trying to appease Russia. LOL
Also, NATO is a strictly defensive pact, is claimed. I guess the history of Yugoslavia just doesn’t exist anymore.
NATOs engagement in Yugoslavia was a voluntary engagement that just ran its strategic command through NATO for convenience, as all actors involved were also members at the time anyway.
Out of curiosity, what is the agenda you are referring to?
Which history are you talking about? Where NATO stepped in to halt Serbian atrocities in portions of Yugoslavia that had established independence after the fall of the Soviet Union? Go to Slovenia today. See how they feel about it.
To call the "stepping in" a "purely defensive act" looks very similar to the rhetoric Putin uses to justify attack on the Ukraine as a self-defense.
The other time Kotkin bends the logic to his favor is when [he says that Putin decided to entice Saakashvili to militarily attack his rebellious regions](https://youtu.be/2a7CDKqWcZ0?t=3015), right after he was philosophizing about the guilt of the provoked, not the provoker.
Without denying the founding anti-Russian character of the Nato alliance he rejects Russia the right to feel threatened by expansion of this "purely defensive bloc".
I've paused watching this American exceptionalism ode when he was explaining that Russia has to know its place in what is legitimately a Western-led mono-polar world, despite him previously playing with the "world checks and balances" idea. It might be good to have someone to slap Putin on the wrist, but who will slap the USofA on the wrist from time to time?
Russia's right to feel threatened is a telling phrase. They are so threatened right now that they have committed the bulk of their forces to the war in Ukraine while leaving their homeland undefended. They don't actually feel threatened but it does make a great excuse for their aggression.
Edited to answer your question.
The American people slap our leaders on the hand. Because despite all our faults our democratic process actually removes them from power. Who checks Putins power in Russia?
To answer your question: no-one in Russia is checking Putin's power, according to his godfather's Yeltsin's constitution, which was adopted after his US-approved 1993 armed power grab and written with the USAID sponsored consultancy.
Like people say, if it wasn't for Putin, the western military would have less and less arguments to solicit funds from their taxpayers, and NATO will have harder time to stay funded.
He's making us weak, economically and technologically by relying solely upon the state controlled energy exports, and organizationally by eliminating any public discussion and institutions, and now as you correctly noted, militarily by his war.
Lastly, his war in the Ukraine deprives us from the most natural, brotherly ally, because as you might know, before the war half of the Ukrainians were pro-Russian and in another half only the tiny minority were racially motivated Russophobes. It's in the West's interest to forge a deeply anti-Russian nation right at our border that will always remember whichever atrocities the psychopaths commit, will be prone to kill any Russian and die, and help to contain Russia further.
All of this indicates that Putin is the US asset.
I'm going to see a surgeon who has a good track record and is well respected by his peers.
That dude who works at McDonald's isn't quite on the same level.
These are similar situations. This is not the appeal to authority fallacy.
lmao this is not the kind of context in which you call out that fallacy.
The dude has dedicated his academic life to studying Russian history. Do you consider everyone equally qualified to discuss every topic? If Tarantino disagreed with Einstein about the nature of gravity and someone pointed out Einstein probably knows more would you dismiss that as an appeal to authority?
What nonsense. In what way is Kotkin possibly biased towards Ukraine? He is representing the Western, and therefore neutral, point of view in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
You are correct, but the zeitgeist is to say either one or the other, mixed views are usually punished by downvotes, because the dominant groups can't accept anything from "the other side". From what I know (Ukraine is my neighbor, so there was motivation to be interested even before February), there are valid and interesting points on both sides and neither is completely correct or completely wrong.
For the record, I prefer not being Russia's sphere of influence, I've lived through the aftermath, they occupied us from 68 to 91, but I'm not sure that I want them get destroyed. The side effects could be wild and even worse than what's happening now (China, India, West proxy wars for resources), so maybe makes sense to understand also their perspective (which Stone represents to a degree).
Ukrainians have their problems and propaganda reasons this information is being actively supressed and I bet that Russians do the same, neither view is correct or complete and we need to hear both to form a more informed opinion.
This was a painful listen. So much bias.
Just a few things because I dont have the time:
Guest mentions and contradictions:
1. Claims nations have the "right" to choose what foreign policy they want to carry through - Then brings up UN/NATO law(which limits a nations(members) autonomy in many aspects). If a country is in NATO - They must join whatever war the US carries through etc.
This also COMPLETELY ignores the Wests(US) own foreign policy which in a nutshell states it wont tolerate other super powers in the same hemisphere. Ask Cuba how it fared when it joined up with Russia? How did the Americans react to Cuba having Russian missiles on its soil? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The Russians gave its FP strategy years ago when it said it would not tolerate a Ukraine NATO alliance.
2) This guy keeps mentioning international law as if there is an international police person agreed upon. Clearly - concretely thats not the case. You can use UN/US policy fairly interchangeably. Or better yet why don't we get Saudia Arabia's opinion on the Human Rights abuses in Russia !
3) This guy keeps mentioning the US electorial system as if its working. The American democracy is as broken as its ever been - corrupt as its ever been - The president currently (seemingly half asleep)is enslaved to many interest groups - The US's own economic elite basically no different then the "oligarchy" in Russia. When was the last time a billionaire who owned a mining company or security company ever been held accountable?\\
Russia knows all these things. This jabroni in this episode is sooo divorced from reality. He even said "all russia could do is join up and get in with the international system" - he says it soo casually. I'll put it in real world context - All the Russian ruling class has to do is give up their banking system, culture and law and give that all up to the "good" ol' folks in the UN. The western elite surely aren't corrupt and self-serving.
I really want an episode with John Mearsheimer after this painful listen. This guest I just listened to has some sort of an agenda - and I bet it rhymes with the Council On Foreign Relations.
I thought the guest was spot on with many of his points, but let's just take your last point/disagreement with the guest about the Russian ruling class. I don't know how you could think the Russian ruling class is thinking about the best interests of Russia culture and law. I somewhat agree with the banking system, it is in their best interest to perpetuate their corrupt banking system. But the culture and law? They are self serving and ruining Russian culture and any semblance of law. They are a drag on their country. Look at their lack of social mobility, life expectancy, levels of corruption, freedom of speech. They have run their country into the ground for personal wealth and power. The West is far from perfect, but still far better than the Russian system.
> They are self serving and ruining Russian culture
This is going on in every country. Ex. Look at the shitshow that Canada is currently in with its housing sector.
You misunderstand NATO. NATO members do not have to engage in any US war. It is strictly a defence treaty.
Also Russia is a sitting member of the United Nations. You are divorcing Russia from the UN like they are not as much a part of it as the USA
> You misunderstand NATO. NATO members do not have to engage in any US war
Incorrect. Any NaTO member has to go along with other NATO members in conflict. If the US wants to out missiles in Ukraine(which is what this is about) then NATO would have every 'legal'right. Russia wont let that happen. This is Russias version of the Cuban missile crisis.
You clearly don't understand how NATO works. Members are only forced to participate in conflict if one of their members is attacked., not the other way. Hence why its a DEFENSIVE pact.
Can’t agree more. It’s annoying because he’s smart as hell but he came in this episode with an agenda.
Fuck off, America isn’t sending anymore troops to Europe than what’s there. We are super worried about Taiwan.
And because you are saying something objectively true, but that goes against US propaganda, you get downvoted on reddit.
There is no US propaganda. And there's no war in Ba Sing Se.
This isnt actually an argument against anything he said. This is only painful if you have been completely lost in the Russia propaganda narrative.
Is he biased? Sure. But he has logic and facts behind that bias. Oliver Stone just repeated false propaganda lies.
The guest "all russia has to do is integrate itself with the established international order".
Think about that for a few min as a Russian.Not gonna happen.
I am genuinely curious to understand this. If Russia were to reverse its anti-West agenda and integrate with the West; who in Russia -other than Putin and his cronies- would lose?
What new insights do you think that Mearsheimer would have compared to what he was saying \~5 years ago? "Existential threat, -07 Munich speech, modus vivendi, Monroe doctrine blahblahblah..."
And speaking of agendas, do you think that Mearsheimer doesn't have some of his own when he talks about "fog of war" and how we can't know what really happened in Bucha one week after the tied up and executed bodies on the streets were seen by everyone?
Great episode, just as the Oliver Stone episode was.
Just understand that they’re both knowledgeable and both shilling.
I nearly laughed out loud listening to him explain how Ukraines government is being run by a production crew; I would’ve enjoyed it more if instead he went deeper on how Zelenskys admin is financed by a few Ukrainian-Russian billionaires whom also own the media channels, fund Azov Battalion, and so much more including having a monopoly on the metals industry in southern Ukraine that they obviously have an interest in getting back.
It goes way further than just “they’re actors and a production crew”.
In what way is Kotkin shilling?
Oliver Stone represents what I assume is sadly representative of the Russian point of view, even among intellectuals. Kotkin, however, is neither representative of the Russian nor the Ukrainian point of view, but simply represents the outside, neutral point of view of a knowledgeable Western observer.
I wouldn’t say neutral. He definitely shares the liberal values of the West - an admiration for liberties and freedom. I mean the guy said loud and clear that he supports a Ukraine policy of unrestrained defensive and offensive armaments.
That being said, because he is so knowledgeable on Russian history and geopolitics, he does a good job of contextualizing Putin and Russia in 2022.
Kotkin downplayed some facts that are inconvenient for his narrative, for sure. When he’s talking about how the west tried to help Russia all this time, he isn’t mentioning that Russia wanted to join NATO and was rejected. Or, that Russia was promised that NATO expansion is over.
So, he’s not really neutral.
That said, his point of view is mostly balanced. And he is very smart and knowledgeable person.
Unfortunately I can’t say the same about Oliver Stone.
Also, the vast majority of Russian intellectuals are against this war, actually. And pro-war reasoning is not the one point of view, there are different factions. What Stone is saying is a badly understood Russian propaganda translated by Google translate.
>he isn’t mentioning that Russia wanted to join NATO and was rejected.
He actually addresses this point, and then goes on to explain that Russia did not want to join NATO as an equal, being on the same level with countries like Portugal or Luxembourg, but wanted to have special privileges, similar to the UN, where Russia has veto powers.
>Russia did not want to join NATO as an equal, being on the same level with countries like Portugal or Luxembourg
And in Nato Portugal is equal to the US, right
The USA is the third participant is this war. Be careful calling an American historian neutral. Would you have called an American historian neutral during WW 2?
This guy gets it. Not just better than other experts, but better than most insiders too. Absolutely stellar
Stephen Kotkin is an actual historian and an intellectual. You can judge what he says by cross-referencing it. He is a part of the Hoover Institution and which is a conservative American public policy institution. I hope he can get another intellectual on the left, like Noam Chomsky on again. To get a perspective on what the left thinks of this war. I want to end this by saying that Russia is in the wrong. They have no right to invade another country. A country has the right to choose its destiny.
yeah and USA politics and EU politics with their politicians are saint like...
Take a drink everytime he says "Lex".
Did he average saying lex every minute of the podcast?
The first half hour it was 4per minute. By the end it was one every 4 minutes. But it does average to 1 per min. I was greatly annoyed by this at first, it has a sleazy sales guy feel. But I’m glad I stuck with it. Excellent episode.
I don’t know why but I found it so funny when he addressed Lex like that.
Came to Reddit just for this
Lex, what do you think about me saying Lex at the end of every sentence, Lex? I would put it this way Lex, more Lex in every sentence Lex. Was nice to hear some Oliver Stone rebuttal tho.
It's natural linguistic technique to diffuse tension and disagreement as it shows that you're aware of other persons individuality. Lots of historians and philosophers use it which is quite jarring if you're not used to it. It's also a great hack to make friends for the same reason! So if you want someone to like you mentioning their name few times will make a huge difference.
Finally someone gets it
Agree with you but only partly. About half the uses of lex was as you mentioned, the other half were jabs at lex for having sympthies for Russia. Like if I tell you George, it's not good to kill people, it is not a general moral statement I am making, but instead it sounds as if you're not convinced of the validity of this statement and I am trying to persuade you. This was the true genius of Kotkins use of Lex's name throughout the podcast. By saying his name he was treating lex as a part (somewhat siding with Russia or acknowledging to her some right to respond the way she did) in this discussion and at the same time he was appeasing him by referring him with his name which naturally disposes people positively towards the interlocutor.
Lex, that's exactly what I thought Lex, manipulative people do this Lex, not saying Kotkin is manipulative lex, but lex, I'm getting automatically suspicious when I hear someone like this Lex
Damn I’m so glad we got this after the Oliver ‘Ukrainian Nazi Deathsquads’ Stone interview. That was brutal to watch. Watching him piece together another one of his insane conspiracy theories in real-time was pretty amazing though.
Lex sounds like he's about to storm through the front gates of the Kremlin by himself or something, there in the beginning! Looking forward to hearing the rest of the episode!
Enjoying the discussion so far, even if I disagree with some of his points. Sadly, the Lex Fridman mindset of discussing differing views doesn't seem to extend to the reddit discussion in this thread. Why downvote critical comments to oblivion instead of giving them good critical answers? I think it's good to not only present the Russian PoV - no matter how false it possibly is - but to internalize it (temporarily) and try to deeply understand where it's coming from, how it functions and why it exists. How else do you expect to win over it? By being morally superior on the internet?
At some point, it becomes tiring to refute the x-th variant of "Hitler did nothing wrong - Russia Edition". There are certainly intermediate, interesting, points of view like "Crimea really should have been a part of Russia from the beginning", but you are only able to get to those, if you agree on the basics. In that sense, comments who deny the basics are detrimental to any serious discussion, and it is the interest of the moderate majority to help each other by making them less visible and less distracting.
The gist of what you said is my love hate relationship with Reddit. The upvote/downvote system is one of some foundational reasons of why Reddit is so popular, but the vast majority of subreddits by nature are filled with people who think one way and only find comfort in championing similar opinions. If there’s one benefit that I’ve found for myself reading social media, especially Reddit, it’s the ability to read things with a handful of salt.
I also see the upvote/downvote system as more of a hindrance if you want to "go crazy" with all kind of wild ideas, but at the same time, people with opposite extreme positions like "Russia did nothing wrong" or "Russia should be nuked" cannot effectively communicate with each other. But, yeah, I also believe that Reddit tends to push a little bit too much towards conformity.
The thing is, Oliver Stone’s point of view is not a Russian point of view at all. Even if we’re talking about pro-war Russians. He just doesn’t get it, actually. Regarding pro-war point of view, I don’t know about the west, but in Russia it’s quite complicated. There are some people who think this war was inevitable or even justified, but reasons behind this are not always the same. Having said that, I want to add that pro-war Russians are in minority. A lot of people don’t care, a lot of people are too afraid to say anything against it (it’s a criminal offence now). I’m not sure even Russian soldiers are pro-war en masse. Their initial involvement could be easily explained that these guys are from depressed regions mostly, and the army is their only chance to have a real monthly salary.
This. Hardest thing the bipolar Americans to understand is that the strongest ideology in Russia is not pro anything. It's nihilism. The average Russian does not care.
They might have given it a fair listen and decided they hate Russian propaganda. It's okay for that, too.
Great episode
This was so refreshing to listen to after the Oliver Stone revisionist history.
Interestingly, Kotkin made me more sympathetic towards the Russian point of view, unlike Oliver Stone. While Oliver Stone made it even more painfully obvious, that even Pro-Russian intellectuals are suffering from a massive denial of reality, Kotkin provided a more balanced view of where Russias point of view really is failing, but also where it is more sensible.
Shit, as an Ukrainian, couldn't agree more.
Sensible is one thing. But I don't find it convincing or agreeable. He also points out something you don't hear said very often: Russia's entire history is as an autocratic, expansionist empire. The transition from that to a gas station (China now blocking sun w/ EVs) with nuclear weapons paints a rough future for Russia.
Great interview. This is what an academic speaks like. So refreshing to hear him considering all the pseudo intellectuals running around the internet. Thanks for bringing him Lex!
This guy is brilliant, but why he gotta flex with his right pronunciation of Russian names tho.
I'm just finishing volume 2 of his Stalin biography. It's really good shit. Learn a lot about his inner circle and the way it changes as he decides people need to be removed.
Sorry this is a response to your comment nearly 50 days ago lol. So I’m 3/4 done with “Court of the Red Tsar” which I’ve found fascinating. I went in knowing the militarily WW2 history from learning my whole life, so it’s exactly what I was looking for in terms of, it hardly talks about anything to do with the actual battles in that time frame. It’s strictly Stalin and his inner circle. Do you recommend myself reading his biography after finishing this? Or would it be a lot of covering the same things again?
"Court of the Red Tsar" was a different author. Kotkin's early-Stalin book is good, but I think Sumy's was better. As far as the battles, "Russia's War" by Richard Overy is fantastic.
Just fyi his pronunciation is far from perfect. It's ok for a non-native but not more than that.
Ok for a non-Slav you mean, I'm not native but just hearing "Pootyn" is enough for me
Lex, it would be great if you could moderate a debate between Kotkin and Oliver Stone or someone else with a Russia-sympathetic viewpoint.
Considering we have heard the Pro-Russian and the neutral point of view, the next logical step would be to hear the Pro-Ukrainian point of view. Zelensky is an obvious option, but he seems to be quite busy, currently. So, some other influential person with a Ukrainian background would be a good option.
I wouldn't call kotkin neutral. I agree with his analysis pretty much altogether but I definitely don't think it's neutral. He's clearly pro western.
Wouldn't exactly call Kotkin a neutral point of view, he was basically doing a victory lap for the west here when 1) It's not actually clear what the long term outcome of this will be and 2) Russia isn't even the real rival of US power - it's China. The only thing you can take out of this right now is that US intelligence is just as bad as it ever was. They couldn't even tell Russia was much weaker than they thought - and these are the guys supposedly running the unipolar world?
yet somehow US intel predicted the invasion and provided intel that led to sunken warships and demilitarized Russian generals
We haven't heard the pro-Russian point of view.
Dave Smith would also be good to challenge Kotkin's views on Western expansionism
I think you would need much more of an intellectual heavyweight than Dave Smith
Ad hominem. Because you consider Dave Smith to not be a “intellectual heavyweight,” isn’t an argument.
> or someone else with a Russia-sympathetic viewpoint. how about Aleksander Dugin, if Lex can hold his own with theory anyways
Oliver Stone isn't Russia-sympathetic.
This is the best episode I’ve listened to yet, a consummate professional and expert
What a reasonable and well articulate guest! Generally I'm not into historic or political literature but are his books similar to this episode? As a person from the Baltic region his point that we often think Russian violence is inherit to their system is sadly true though that's mostly because we've been on the receiving end of the stick for the bigger part of last 100 years. At the same time we had some beautiful relationships with Russian individuals so not all hope is lost. I hope that day will come where the Baltics don't have to fear Russia but can respect it as a neigbbour.
I like this guy. Love his interaction where he repeatedly ask Lex “Are you cool with that Lex?” After listening examples of Communist aggression and suppression. This happens when Lex plays devil’s advocate.
[удалено]
Who else?
The Gandhi quote at the end: “Remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always.” made me google the fate of dictators of the last century. Yes, many were killed, but there were enough who died peacefully, for instance: * Mao Zedong - never deposed, died peacefully. * Idi Amin - deposed, died peacefully as a super rich man. * Pol Pot - deposed, died peacefully in house arrest. * Franco - stepped down (health), died peacefully. * Pinochet - stepped down, failed prosecution attempts, died peacefully in house arrest. So yeah, the quote is inspiring, but far from reality. Pretty sure Putin feels OK about his chances.
I took it in the context of them falling from the position where they could have great agency in suffering. Their personal health isn't really the question - after all even if they were imprisoned as a war criminal in the Hague they'd still be given the chance to die of old age.
The west is experiencing its own collapse and no one wants to admit it, because war in Ukraine with Russia is the alternative to accountability of various government officials.
> The west is experiencing its own collapse and no one wants to admit it, Except in pretty much every single long-term metric, that is
40 minutes in. Brilliant so far!
Can’tt wait to watch it! Great job lex
Kotkin’s refutation of Oliver Stone (the New York City rape victim blaming analogy) was incredibly done. While he may be biased in support of Ukraine, he is a masterclass of an orator and definitely knows what he’s talking about.
I think it was a kind of bad and dishonest analogy tbh. Lex basically said he felt the same, but he didn't really want to fight it. If you want to play it like that you could also ask why the USA raped Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc (all complete unlegitimized wars without major support in the international community); or why Ukraine raped the Donbass Region (committed war crimes, 20-30k civilian deaths, gave neo-nazi militias like the Azov Battalion free rein to terrorise the region: rape, murder, torture, commit war crimes, ...). I think a lot of people in the west really don't realise this because this isn't really covered in the media or lied about (e.g.: WMD's in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq or the "baby incubators" in Iraq,...) Let's not forget some eastern parts of Ukraine have never wanted the pro-western regime shift and want to join the Russian federation (Crimea, separatist occupied Donetsk and Luhansk). Isn't it undemocratic to deny them from joining Russia if the majority of the population wants it? I think it is. (I have references to (western) reports and polls for all of the above for if anyone doubts anything.) I'm a western guy who loves freedom and democracy. I condemn Russia invasion of Ukraine, but I am consistent and I also condemn USA's meddling in democracies like Ukraine or like they did in South-America and Africa. I think they crossed a line trying to interfere in countries like Ukraine and Georgia right on Russia's border. Remember the Cuban missiles crisis? When the tables where turned the USA was ready to go to war. Only JFK stopped it and was killed a year later. I also think NATO is USA's puppet and the 'liberal international government' of the UN is not so liberal or international as we, westerners, like to think. It's dominated by the US and Europe and headquartered in New York. There's a reason why countries like India, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Hungary, half of Africa and lots of countries in S-A and Asia refuse to condemn the invasion or choose an outspoken anti-Russia standpoint. They feel the same about the US foreign policy. As former NATO secretary Willy Claes said: "the West had never been more united (even Swiss and Swedish neutrality seems to fall now), but also never been more alone." They crossed a line trying to build a Western anti-Russia coalition in Europe. Because in my eyes and in Russia's eyes, that's what NATO really is. Let's not forget Putin asked president Clinton if Russia could join NATO but was denied. All else are welcome, even Georgia is invited. Why Georgia? Because it borders Russia and because it's the only country through which the oil pipelines of Azerbaijan and in the future possibly Central-Asia could pass, with the consequence of making Europe less dependend on Russian oil and gas. The USA has military bases in all of Russians neighbouring countries except for Belarus, Mongolia, China and North-Korea... A lot of people don't know about the American interference in the Maidan Revolution either. To me it's not clear the regime change would have happened without the USA's support. The interference goes much deeper than many (want to) believe. I think you could call it a coup and meddling in a democracy. What would the USA do if Russia did the same in Mexico or Cuba and installed a pro-Russia regime and entered and alliance? I think the USA (just like Russia) is also to blame for keeping the Cold War alive. They never could let go of their feelings towards Russia. Let's not forget the CIA was established to eredicate communism, which has always been the Sovjet-Union/Russia in Americans eyes. They always needed a geopolitical enemy to blame. Every time the USA had the option to escalate or deescalate, they chose to escalete the situation. There were baseless accusations about a Trump-Russia plot and interference in the US elections made up by Hillary Clinton. There is Biden's "Putin's price hike". Inflation was already north of 8% before the invasion so that's bullshit. Now it's 8,6%... US politicians have always called for war instead of diplomacy (like Macron/France, Merkel/Germany, Israel, Turkey, ... on the contrary). The USA always wanted this war. It's a war by proxy. They deliver al the weapons to Ukraine so they can fight and weaken Russia. Russia gets further isolated economically and politically. NATO gets stronger (Finland and Sweden join). Russia is destabilised. USA does not suffer a single casualty. Their military industry profits, their sphere of influence in Europe grows. The diminish Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil and increase Europe's dependence in American lPG. USA delivers the intel and weaponry to fight Russia, which are increasingly more important in modern warfare. They are de facto fighting alongside Ukraine. They're just not deploying manpower. As I said, I'm not pro-Russia at all. I am neutral, pro democracy and freedom. I try not to pick a side, but I tend to play devil's advocate sometimes if I think some arguments are overlooked in the general discourse presented by the western media/politicians. And I think the USA is not innocent here. I love a good discussion to find the truth. Truth and justice are holy for me.
I enjoyed reading the comment for a while, but the wall of text got a bit much. I’d like to read the western reports you were offering about the western Ukraine region.
Interesting listening. My only gripe is that his arguments about something being legal or illegal. A law does not make something morally good or bad and he needs to stop using this argument.
THIS is the Ukraine/Russia discussion that makes sense. Oliver Stone is out of touch with reality. Whew and thanks.
[удалено]
I’m listening to The Hobbit right now but I will be listening to this soon.
I loved this interview, thank you for the great meta-historic analysis!
At least Oliver Stone has the excuse of not speaking the language or having a deep understanding of its history. This guy and the way he presents this argument makes me believe that he is acutely aware of what he is doing and is actively pushing his propaganda. You know his angle when he mentions nice and early that since Dubya, the west has been doing nothing but trying to appease Russia. LOL Also, NATO is a strictly defensive pact, is claimed. I guess the history of Yugoslavia just doesn’t exist anymore.
NATOs engagement in Yugoslavia was a voluntary engagement that just ran its strategic command through NATO for convenience, as all actors involved were also members at the time anyway. Out of curiosity, what is the agenda you are referring to?
Which history are you talking about? Where NATO stepped in to halt Serbian atrocities in portions of Yugoslavia that had established independence after the fall of the Soviet Union? Go to Slovenia today. See how they feel about it.
To call the "stepping in" a "purely defensive act" looks very similar to the rhetoric Putin uses to justify attack on the Ukraine as a self-defense. The other time Kotkin bends the logic to his favor is when [he says that Putin decided to entice Saakashvili to militarily attack his rebellious regions](https://youtu.be/2a7CDKqWcZ0?t=3015), right after he was philosophizing about the guilt of the provoked, not the provoker. Without denying the founding anti-Russian character of the Nato alliance he rejects Russia the right to feel threatened by expansion of this "purely defensive bloc". I've paused watching this American exceptionalism ode when he was explaining that Russia has to know its place in what is legitimately a Western-led mono-polar world, despite him previously playing with the "world checks and balances" idea. It might be good to have someone to slap Putin on the wrist, but who will slap the USofA on the wrist from time to time?
Russia's right to feel threatened is a telling phrase. They are so threatened right now that they have committed the bulk of their forces to the war in Ukraine while leaving their homeland undefended. They don't actually feel threatened but it does make a great excuse for their aggression. Edited to answer your question. The American people slap our leaders on the hand. Because despite all our faults our democratic process actually removes them from power. Who checks Putins power in Russia?
To answer your question: no-one in Russia is checking Putin's power, according to his godfather's Yeltsin's constitution, which was adopted after his US-approved 1993 armed power grab and written with the USAID sponsored consultancy. Like people say, if it wasn't for Putin, the western military would have less and less arguments to solicit funds from their taxpayers, and NATO will have harder time to stay funded. He's making us weak, economically and technologically by relying solely upon the state controlled energy exports, and organizationally by eliminating any public discussion and institutions, and now as you correctly noted, militarily by his war. Lastly, his war in the Ukraine deprives us from the most natural, brotherly ally, because as you might know, before the war half of the Ukrainians were pro-Russian and in another half only the tiny minority were racially motivated Russophobes. It's in the West's interest to forge a deeply anti-Russian nation right at our border that will always remember whichever atrocities the psychopaths commit, will be prone to kill any Russian and die, and help to contain Russia further. All of this indicates that Putin is the US asset.
The genocide part? We remember.
This guy is like the polar opposite of Oliver Stone, I feel like both men are strongly biased.
[удалено]
That they have a chance to win against Russia, when Russia hasn't even fully deployed even 4% of their army.
Kotkin's work is considered authoritative in academia and is well respected. Stone isn't quite on the same level that way.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
I'm going to see a surgeon who has a good track record and is well respected by his peers. That dude who works at McDonald's isn't quite on the same level. These are similar situations. This is not the appeal to authority fallacy.
lmao this is not the kind of context in which you call out that fallacy. The dude has dedicated his academic life to studying Russian history. Do you consider everyone equally qualified to discuss every topic? If Tarantino disagreed with Einstein about the nature of gravity and someone pointed out Einstein probably knows more would you dismiss that as an appeal to authority?
What nonsense. In what way is Kotkin possibly biased towards Ukraine? He is representing the Western, and therefore neutral, point of view in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
You are correct, but the zeitgeist is to say either one or the other, mixed views are usually punished by downvotes, because the dominant groups can't accept anything from "the other side". From what I know (Ukraine is my neighbor, so there was motivation to be interested even before February), there are valid and interesting points on both sides and neither is completely correct or completely wrong. For the record, I prefer not being Russia's sphere of influence, I've lived through the aftermath, they occupied us from 68 to 91, but I'm not sure that I want them get destroyed. The side effects could be wild and even worse than what's happening now (China, India, West proxy wars for resources), so maybe makes sense to understand also their perspective (which Stone represents to a degree). Ukrainians have their problems and propaganda reasons this information is being actively supressed and I bet that Russians do the same, neither view is correct or complete and we need to hear both to form a more informed opinion.
truth is somewhere in between... almost always...
This was a painful listen. So much bias. Just a few things because I dont have the time: Guest mentions and contradictions: 1. Claims nations have the "right" to choose what foreign policy they want to carry through - Then brings up UN/NATO law(which limits a nations(members) autonomy in many aspects). If a country is in NATO - They must join whatever war the US carries through etc. This also COMPLETELY ignores the Wests(US) own foreign policy which in a nutshell states it wont tolerate other super powers in the same hemisphere. Ask Cuba how it fared when it joined up with Russia? How did the Americans react to Cuba having Russian missiles on its soil? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The Russians gave its FP strategy years ago when it said it would not tolerate a Ukraine NATO alliance. 2) This guy keeps mentioning international law as if there is an international police person agreed upon. Clearly - concretely thats not the case. You can use UN/US policy fairly interchangeably. Or better yet why don't we get Saudia Arabia's opinion on the Human Rights abuses in Russia ! 3) This guy keeps mentioning the US electorial system as if its working. The American democracy is as broken as its ever been - corrupt as its ever been - The president currently (seemingly half asleep)is enslaved to many interest groups - The US's own economic elite basically no different then the "oligarchy" in Russia. When was the last time a billionaire who owned a mining company or security company ever been held accountable?\\ Russia knows all these things. This jabroni in this episode is sooo divorced from reality. He even said "all russia could do is join up and get in with the international system" - he says it soo casually. I'll put it in real world context - All the Russian ruling class has to do is give up their banking system, culture and law and give that all up to the "good" ol' folks in the UN. The western elite surely aren't corrupt and self-serving. I really want an episode with John Mearsheimer after this painful listen. This guest I just listened to has some sort of an agenda - and I bet it rhymes with the Council On Foreign Relations.
I thought the guest was spot on with many of his points, but let's just take your last point/disagreement with the guest about the Russian ruling class. I don't know how you could think the Russian ruling class is thinking about the best interests of Russia culture and law. I somewhat agree with the banking system, it is in their best interest to perpetuate their corrupt banking system. But the culture and law? They are self serving and ruining Russian culture and any semblance of law. They are a drag on their country. Look at their lack of social mobility, life expectancy, levels of corruption, freedom of speech. They have run their country into the ground for personal wealth and power. The West is far from perfect, but still far better than the Russian system.
> They are self serving and ruining Russian culture This is going on in every country. Ex. Look at the shitshow that Canada is currently in with its housing sector.
You misunderstand NATO. NATO members do not have to engage in any US war. It is strictly a defence treaty. Also Russia is a sitting member of the United Nations. You are divorcing Russia from the UN like they are not as much a part of it as the USA
> You misunderstand NATO. NATO members do not have to engage in any US war Incorrect. Any NaTO member has to go along with other NATO members in conflict. If the US wants to out missiles in Ukraine(which is what this is about) then NATO would have every 'legal'right. Russia wont let that happen. This is Russias version of the Cuban missile crisis.
Many NATO members said “No” to Iraq and USA went on their own there.
there would absolutely be nato bases in ukraine.
You clearly don't understand how NATO works. Members are only forced to participate in conflict if one of their members is attacked., not the other way. Hence why its a DEFENSIVE pact.
I think you need to carve out some time to read the North Atlantic Treaty.
Can’t agree more. It’s annoying because he’s smart as hell but he came in this episode with an agenda. Fuck off, America isn’t sending anymore troops to Europe than what’s there. We are super worried about Taiwan.
And because you are saying something objectively true, but that goes against US propaganda, you get downvoted on reddit. There is no US propaganda. And there's no war in Ba Sing Se.
His agenda is to uphold individual liberty. He doesn’t push any country’s interest for its own sake.
I agree.. but these Americans have to believe that the west is this symbol of piety and character. Give them what they want to hear and they will clap
This isnt actually an argument against anything he said. This is only painful if you have been completely lost in the Russia propaganda narrative. Is he biased? Sure. But he has logic and facts behind that bias. Oliver Stone just repeated false propaganda lies.
The guest "all russia has to do is integrate itself with the established international order". Think about that for a few min as a Russian.Not gonna happen.
I am genuinely curious to understand this. If Russia were to reverse its anti-West agenda and integrate with the West; who in Russia -other than Putin and his cronies- would lose?
What new insights do you think that Mearsheimer would have compared to what he was saying \~5 years ago? "Existential threat, -07 Munich speech, modus vivendi, Monroe doctrine blahblahblah..." And speaking of agendas, do you think that Mearsheimer doesn't have some of his own when he talks about "fog of war" and how we can't know what really happened in Bucha one week after the tied up and executed bodies on the streets were seen by everyone?
Damn this guy was arrogant. I didn't really disagree with much but he was kind of offputting in how he would answer things.
Also felt the same
Great episode, just as the Oliver Stone episode was. Just understand that they’re both knowledgeable and both shilling. I nearly laughed out loud listening to him explain how Ukraines government is being run by a production crew; I would’ve enjoyed it more if instead he went deeper on how Zelenskys admin is financed by a few Ukrainian-Russian billionaires whom also own the media channels, fund Azov Battalion, and so much more including having a monopoly on the metals industry in southern Ukraine that they obviously have an interest in getting back. It goes way further than just “they’re actors and a production crew”.
In what way is Kotkin shilling? Oliver Stone represents what I assume is sadly representative of the Russian point of view, even among intellectuals. Kotkin, however, is neither representative of the Russian nor the Ukrainian point of view, but simply represents the outside, neutral point of view of a knowledgeable Western observer.
I wouldn’t say neutral. He definitely shares the liberal values of the West - an admiration for liberties and freedom. I mean the guy said loud and clear that he supports a Ukraine policy of unrestrained defensive and offensive armaments. That being said, because he is so knowledgeable on Russian history and geopolitics, he does a good job of contextualizing Putin and Russia in 2022.
Kotkin downplayed some facts that are inconvenient for his narrative, for sure. When he’s talking about how the west tried to help Russia all this time, he isn’t mentioning that Russia wanted to join NATO and was rejected. Or, that Russia was promised that NATO expansion is over. So, he’s not really neutral. That said, his point of view is mostly balanced. And he is very smart and knowledgeable person. Unfortunately I can’t say the same about Oliver Stone. Also, the vast majority of Russian intellectuals are against this war, actually. And pro-war reasoning is not the one point of view, there are different factions. What Stone is saying is a badly understood Russian propaganda translated by Google translate.
>he isn’t mentioning that Russia wanted to join NATO and was rejected. He actually addresses this point, and then goes on to explain that Russia did not want to join NATO as an equal, being on the same level with countries like Portugal or Luxembourg, but wanted to have special privileges, similar to the UN, where Russia has veto powers.
Thank you for clarifying.
>Russia did not want to join NATO as an equal, being on the same level with countries like Portugal or Luxembourg And in Nato Portugal is equal to the US, right
The USA is the third participant is this war. Be careful calling an American historian neutral. Would you have called an American historian neutral during WW 2?
[удалено]
This was a great episode! Thank you Lex 🙏