Very well put. I guess we were writing our comments at around the same time, but you expressed some of my thoughts more clearly and thoroughly than I did.
To be clear, I see your comment as a rounding out of the important and oft-neglected perspective Darryl is bringing to the table. But I agree that without this rounding-out, the “blame …
Very well put. I guess we were writing our comments at around the same time, but you expressed some of my thoughts more clearly and thoroughly than I did.
To be clear, I see your comment as a rounding out of the important and oft-neglected perspective Darryl is bringing to the table. But I agree that without this rounding-out, the “blame US foreign policy” perspective is hopelessly riddled with blind spots.
That’s my main point. NATO expansion is a certainly a factor here. But it is by no means the sole or even the most important of factors in my mind. The singular focus on it by Daryl and others like Horton without even trying to address the other obvious things involved here bothers the hell out of me. Especially as they accuse others of lazy or black and white thinking.
Fair enough - however stuff like this is full of too much history, too many characters and actors with complex motivations - it's unreasonable to expect an hour long podcast to paint the full picture from the Baptism of the Kievan Rus, through Putin's life history and relationship to Dugin, and then on a deeper level how Putin and Dugin are dismantling the Western pseudomorphosis with a cultural immune Boundary Act.
Those are unreasonable expectations to place on Daryll - what he was doing was a sort of direct response to what we're seeing around us in our day to day media environment - comparisons w/ Hitler, and the 24/7 social media info barrage that creates this "out of nowhere and for no reason at all" narrative. Given that Daryll and most us listeners are American - it's completely reasonable that his focus was on a varying perspective - specifically U.S. foreign policy perspective starting from the end of the Cold War, and contrasting with what the u.s. foreign policy establishment is saying now with what they said and how they behaved previously.
Nowhere did he say NATO expansion was the ONLY factor - but it's entirely reasonable IMO to give background on the evolution of american foreign policy leading up to this point - especially when many of our foreign policy greats from previous decades explicitly predicted this sort of outcome / response from this sort of fp behavior.
I reject this. I’m expecting the same standard Daryl has set for himself in pretty every previous series/episodes on this podcast. Virtually all of the topics he covers are controversial, often with propaganda and conflicting narratives around them. He’s proven more the capable of giving each side its due on a subject, why not here?
If I had to guess the answer is time. What’s the prep time of any of his long form podcasts? Three months? Eight months? A year? Russia invaded less than a month ago, and Darryl was on vacation for some of that time. He also had previous commitments and other responsibilities (like The Unraveling Podcast). Would it be better for him not to release anything about it for six months until he can do a thorough six hour introduction? Also most of what Darryl covers is more than thirty years in the past which means the path is often well tread with lots of verifiable sources, it’s a matter of assimilating those sources in his own unique way. Much of what he has researched can be primarily researched reading books. But because this is so current reliable sources aren’t as readily available, information even from the fall of the USSR is still classified. Much of the information isn’t in published books, it has to be fished out of newspaper articles and blogs which is much harder, especially when that information is being purposely obfuscated by search engines. I use Duck Duck Go, not even Google but the descriptors of the Azov battalion on a search from today is almost the opposite of what I get if I change the publication time to 2016 or even 2018. Publications that are currently claiming the Azov neo-Nazi ties are propaganda wrote articles proclaiming that exact thing in 2018. It’s not impossible to do such research but it’s extremely time consuming.
Very well put. I guess we were writing our comments at around the same time, but you expressed some of my thoughts more clearly and thoroughly than I did.
To be clear, I see your comment as a rounding out of the important and oft-neglected perspective Darryl is bringing to the table. But I agree that without this rounding-out, the “blame US foreign policy” perspective is hopelessly riddled with blind spots.
That’s my main point. NATO expansion is a certainly a factor here. But it is by no means the sole or even the most important of factors in my mind. The singular focus on it by Daryl and others like Horton without even trying to address the other obvious things involved here bothers the hell out of me. Especially as they accuse others of lazy or black and white thinking.
Fair enough - however stuff like this is full of too much history, too many characters and actors with complex motivations - it's unreasonable to expect an hour long podcast to paint the full picture from the Baptism of the Kievan Rus, through Putin's life history and relationship to Dugin, and then on a deeper level how Putin and Dugin are dismantling the Western pseudomorphosis with a cultural immune Boundary Act.
Those are unreasonable expectations to place on Daryll - what he was doing was a sort of direct response to what we're seeing around us in our day to day media environment - comparisons w/ Hitler, and the 24/7 social media info barrage that creates this "out of nowhere and for no reason at all" narrative. Given that Daryll and most us listeners are American - it's completely reasonable that his focus was on a varying perspective - specifically U.S. foreign policy perspective starting from the end of the Cold War, and contrasting with what the u.s. foreign policy establishment is saying now with what they said and how they behaved previously.
Nowhere did he say NATO expansion was the ONLY factor - but it's entirely reasonable IMO to give background on the evolution of american foreign policy leading up to this point - especially when many of our foreign policy greats from previous decades explicitly predicted this sort of outcome / response from this sort of fp behavior.
I reject this. I’m expecting the same standard Daryl has set for himself in pretty every previous series/episodes on this podcast. Virtually all of the topics he covers are controversial, often with propaganda and conflicting narratives around them. He’s proven more the capable of giving each side its due on a subject, why not here?
If I had to guess the answer is time. What’s the prep time of any of his long form podcasts? Three months? Eight months? A year? Russia invaded less than a month ago, and Darryl was on vacation for some of that time. He also had previous commitments and other responsibilities (like The Unraveling Podcast). Would it be better for him not to release anything about it for six months until he can do a thorough six hour introduction? Also most of what Darryl covers is more than thirty years in the past which means the path is often well tread with lots of verifiable sources, it’s a matter of assimilating those sources in his own unique way. Much of what he has researched can be primarily researched reading books. But because this is so current reliable sources aren’t as readily available, information even from the fall of the USSR is still classified. Much of the information isn’t in published books, it has to be fished out of newspaper articles and blogs which is much harder, especially when that information is being purposely obfuscated by search engines. I use Duck Duck Go, not even Google but the descriptors of the Azov battalion on a search from today is almost the opposite of what I get if I change the publication time to 2016 or even 2018. Publications that are currently claiming the Azov neo-Nazi ties are propaganda wrote articles proclaiming that exact thing in 2018. It’s not impossible to do such research but it’s extremely time consuming.