The Agenda

I was on TVO’s ‘flagship current affairs program’ The Agenda last night, talking about NATO, Russia, defence spending and the like. You can watch it here.

Enjoy!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The Agenda”

  1. Two neocons, one peacenik, one realist, eh? Better than most western TV shows anyway. Of course I would like to see zero neocons; for the neocon shit to become totally unacceptable in public discourse. Tsk. Oh well, one can dream…

    Like

  2. Comment section is already amazing!

    “Dmitry Berger – 33 minutes ago

    The chap from Ottawa is a known Putin apologist. He publishes text in support of Russian authoritarianism. Either a useful idiot or worse.”

    Judging by his other comments we have here a true svidomite… who, although, uses the “language of the aggresssor” exclusively. Canadian diaspora?

    Like

    1. My memory must be faulty, as I don’t remember writing any pieces ‘in support of Russian authoritarianism.’ I must start doing so – don’t want to disappoint!

      Like

  3. Surprised by how much professors Stein and Saideman poisoned by propagandist cliches. Their arguments are absolutely divorced from the reality. Do they realize that by saying nonsense they lose their reputation in the scientific world? Paul did a great job as a real scientist who нas a good command of the topic of the discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Do they realize that by saying nonsense they lose their reputation in the scientific world?”

      You really think so? This highly idealized vision of the scientific community

      Like

      1. I am not an idealist. But cannot tolerate childish stupidity from people who makes money for leaving by spreading lies and ethnic hatred

        Like

  4. There’s one point I partially disagree with, which is the question of NATO’s usefulness and importance to Canada. I think it’s fair enough to harshly criticize NATO’s recent actions, but I would make a distinction between what NATO does and what NATO is, just like an individual country can have a terrible government, without that meaning that the country itself shouldn’t exist. For a country of Canada’s small size (in terms of population) and strategic situation, there’s no practical possibility of a neutralist or autonomist security policy. NATO (or something very like it) is Canada’s only alternative to full subordination to the US in security matters. It’s also useful for maintaining contacts and cooperation with the Western European countries, which can be useful in other spheres. For example, I think the negotiation of the CETA treaty would have been more difficult without the interconnections fostered between Canada and Europe by our security ties. So I agree that NATO, as an organization, has been acting terribly in recent years, but I think the solution to that is to look for change within the NATO context rather than rejecting that context altogether

    Like

    1. “Recent years?” How about a couple of decades (if not longer)? For the moment, in its current structure, it is more interested in fighting Russia rather than real threats that are affecting the international community. Canadian men and women are being deployed to countries like Latvia to defend Russian “aggression.” At any moment, an incident between Russia and Latvia (or any other NATO member state) can put Canadians in the middle of a hot (and potentially Nuclear) war. How does that protect Canada and its citizens? The reforms will only come from America and I don’t see that happening anytime soon. At the moment, NATO is part of the problem, not the solution. New coalitions between countries need to emerge in order to address the challenges of the 21st century because this alliance is outdated.

      Like

      1. “Canadian men and women are being deployed to countries like Latvia to defend Russian “aggression.””

        Nah – it’s a budget version of the sex-tourism. Budget as in – “paid with taxpayers money”. 😉

        “New coalitions between countries need to emerge in order to address the challenges of the 21st century because this alliance is outdated.”

        NATO is American’s MIC tool. Why whould they shoot themselves in the foot? Do you think they value human lives over money?

        Past decade(s?) taught the Enlightenned Western Public ™ that death of people in the Third World by any causes brought directly or indirectly by the weapons made in the First World trumps the fact, that you will keep earning heafty gesheft from the Gulfies.

        Time to realize that same old profit sense trumps all kind of snetimental shit when it comes to the death of the “proper” Westerners at home. Get used to that – after all, president Emmanuell(e) told you so. Relax and think of the country.

        Like

    2. But perhaps NATO has been discredited to such an extent that it would make more sense, at this point, to ditch it altogether and to try to find a different approach. After all, the geopolitical landscape has changed beyond recognition in the last 70 years. In fact, it had already changed significantly by the end of the 1950s. And NATO is still in the ‘Americans in, Russians out, Germans down’ M.O.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s