True, it is too simplistic to just look at the geopolitical situation - the domestic flaws with Russia’s political system and the economic fallout of the 1990s was the basis for heightened nationalism and the growing ‘enemy image’ of NATO only exacerbated it. Dugin had been a fascist many years prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, so they did exist like you said for some time, I think it just became more popular to the average Russian in the 1990s (see nationalist election results in 1993 & 96). I think I only wanted to outline how Russia saw itself as being boxed in (which personally I don’t think is true), and that pushed them towards nationalism and authoritarianism. Thank you for your comment.

I can assure you, or rather OPutin, that in all its history never has NATO even contemplated 'invading' Russia. The idea is absurd. However, the reverse is not true: it is clear that Russia under Putin wants to expand its territory, and the real problem with having NATO on his borders and in his sphere of influence is that NATO puts a limit on his expansionist impulses.

I deeply sympathize with the plight of Ukrainians and despise all the crimes committed at behest of Kremlin. However I would argue that the US and the Western Europe should have chosen to focus on democratization and economic elevation of Russia instead of the two-pronged approach that was undertaken and and ultimately half-assed. I understand they didn’t have all the information that we have now but they knew enough to draw clear lines for the Russian elite and strip them of some trade/tech/businesses opportunities for every violation. One of the key conditions would have been inviolability of neighboring borders, Russian elections integrity, judicial and media independence. They didn’t have to sacrifice freedom of the newly independent states but withhold official enlargement, at least don’t attempt to move further than Poland without a major violation. I guess the hydra approach was a calculated ploy of hawks in American government with them undermining Russia becoming a strong democratic state and thus removing a potential competitor, especially during Bill Clinton’s presidency who delegated foreign policy almost entirely. But like it often happens with American supremacists (who worked to overthrow democratic Iran government, for example), their actions had unintended consequences and now they came home to roost. If instead they managed to make Russia democratic and prosperous it would have been a key security partner in containing the communist China, the belligerent North Korea, the rogue Iran and combating Islamist terrorism.

@@DorianLS Yeah, Russia does not fear an invasion from NATO, they fear that NATO will make it impossible for them to invade others.

One huge mistake that videos like these make (no matter if they are pro-west, pro-russia or seemingly "neutral"), is that they consider post-soviet and post-warsaw pact countries as just mere a pawns or tokens to be traded with. Sure, you could leave the whole Eastern Europe to the Russian sphere of influence to quell all Russian insecurities, but that would obviously presuppose direct influence of Russia on said states, no matter if they like it or not. Also the opposite, where all of Europe (including Russia) joins the NATO is to admit, unrealistic due to Russian pride. So in the end it seems that west just did the next best thing - nothing. Just let the Eastern Europe decide for themselves if they want in. Some joined like Poland or Baltics and some not like Belarus or Finland. So current situation seems unavoidable in the retrospect. Its easy to blame the current geopolitical situation on the ignorance of the West, but that ignorance wouldnt turn deadly if it wasnt for pride and hubris of Russia. Many forget that Germany didnt become the way it is by destroying the West, it became like this by beating West in its own game. Same can be said for Japan or China. Russians had a choice, and they choosed violence and pride.

Design like a channel with 1.6M not 1.6K

@@frzen no its designed like 1791l

@@SnoopyDoofie hmmm. I'm not so sure about that unless you mean quantity of videos produced being content. This appears to be a small production company or even individual, and the number of productions is very small. But the productions are informative to me and the graphics make it pleasing to watch. Kurtsgezacht is interesting but they also have a crew working on their productions.

Good graphics are expensive. I would be interested to know the sources of funding for this channel

@@AsIf-pz9kt im pretty sure its just one guy with graphic design experience. Thats why there is so much down time between videos. Certainly worth the wait though!

Hi there, thanks for making your criticism known. The Second Chechen war was a propaganda vehicle for the Putin government meant to inspire nationalism and secure his position as president - I agree on that point. However, since I have time restraints with these videos I couldn't delve further into that subject, which would have seen me add another 10 minutes to the video. My conclusion that Putin would make authoritarianism no fad was meant to nod at Putin's attempts to further reinforce authoritarianism and kill off democracy in that fashion. I agree that not factoring in the first Chechen war was an oversight - sometimes I miss things. The Democratic reforms in the 90s were not such much democratic, the constitutional amendment of 1993 centralised power in the executive and was forced through by Yeltsin with unscrupulous means - so on that point I disagree. With regards to the high oil prices of the 2000s I did come across that in my research, but I felt that Russian democracy had already been undermined to the point that that development was no longer important. On the final point, Zhirnovsky was most certainly a nationalist in the 90s - every contemporary publication that I read and every politician that was active during the time who I researched called him a nationalist. In the early 1990s he wanted to repeal perestroika era reforms, reintigrate former soviet republics, and 'end russia's' humiliation abroad - these aims are representative of an authoritarian nationalist. He was also close with other nationalists such as Gennady Zyuganov. (Terry D.Clark - The Zhirinovsky Electoral Victory). You can check the description for the other sources. Overall, good criticism - I did overlook some things, but I still feel the overall argument of the video - why Russian democracy failed being that the political system itself was corrupt and not exactly conducive to democracy - still stands. The fact that Putin further engaged in that system to reinforce authoritarianism is important, but it still does not negate the fact that Russian democracy was fundementally flawed from the start, and that is the crux of the problem.

​@@IMPERIALYTbiases. Dugin is a just clown, not serious philosophyman down here.

​@@SN-gd3fmdugler isnt a clown he just isnt as sinister and important as westoids try to make him

More like because of Putin putting on a leash on Russian oligarchs who were looting Russia and ending their political power.

@@digger6843imagine using the term Westwoids unironically

Because being puppet of NATO or the US is much better than russia Look at central american country

I think it would’ve been best if democratic Russia joined NATO. I mean it’s solely a defense alliance that had done a few UN missions but nothing else

@@realtimestatic Counterpoint: Democratic alliances can be severely weakened by the addition of pseudo-democratic members. See the EU’s troubles with Hungary, or NATO’s troubles with Turkey.

@@rhubarbjin that’s why I said a democratic Russia, not the current one

@@realtimestatic Apart from those "defense missions", which could be and have been criticized, with regard to Russia it is purely defensive. It is absurd to think that NATO would 'invade' Russia. NATO is there to ensure that Russia does not invade others, a much more likely possibility.

You’ve managed to continue to blame communism for the failures of a capitalist society that went warp speed into privatization. What do you expect to happen? But of course you’ll blame it on the “mindsets” ingrained in them by their soviet upbringings. Speculative nonsense, speak based on actual fact not your bias

They cannot accept the graceful defeat that happened to them. Experimented with Anarcho-capitalism to completely rid of Brezhnev-era policy and failed so hard on that front. The Russians can all have their "anxiety" but her neighbors have all the right to remove themselves from their yoke and it was best for the Russians to accept this and just build their internal politics and reform their economic institutions. Their exaggerated "anxiety" AND MISPLACED PRIDE of being a "great empire" is THEIR FAILING AND THEIR FAILING ALONE.

Those oligarchs spawned in thanks to western financial institution advising Russia sell it's assets for pennies which created Oligarchs whose corruption nearly destroyed Russia.

The "Russia" really did just "pop up" out of nowhere. Bolsheviks have slaughtered the culture of previous state, while their own creation has collapsed on it's own, leaving many in a state of a blank sheet of paper with no goals and only misery. Most functioning democracies right now aren't a product of self-determination - they were forced, guided and supported. In case of Russia, however, the last part was missing and people just didn't see any benefits of democracy or capitalism. Advisors on Russian policy did advise USA and allies to support Russia on it's path to democracy, but the help was incomparably weaker to what was advised and, well, the only "meaningful" assistance was rigging the elections during 90s, so communists wouldn't be back at charge. There were plenty of opportunities to "crush" the resistance to democracy, but all of them were ignored.

I discovered this channel through you bro

Excellent recommendation.

@@Celestinedzn Same

Thanks for spelling labour correctly

How do you pronounce schedule

@@dominicthorpe2300 [xæ-yt-ËRH]

In 2012, Barack Obama completely laughed off the idea of Russia ever becoming a US geopolitical adversary again when his opponent brought it up in a debate. This video, although good at explaining the Russian perspective, also doesn't mention that the 1997 NATO founding act formally recognized Russia and NATO as non-adversarial, that Putin was at one point interested in joining NATO, Russia participated in joint military drills with NATO, and that NATO purposefully did not station nuclear weapons in new NATO member states. Not having nuclear-armed countries on Russia's borders is also one of the reasons why Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal.

@@Leitis_Fella Regardless of Obama's 2012 theatrics, NATO (an extension of US foreign policy) declared already in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, which led to the Russo-Georgian war and later, in 2014, to the Russo-Ukrainian war, which only escalated in 2022. Russia made it very clear from the beginning that it considered that expansion unacceptable, but NATO pushed on with it regardless, while mainstream politicians like Obama and Merkel played it down, seemingly as a ruse.

​@hyhhy Russia does not dicate the foreign policy of INDEPENDENT STATES WHO DECIDED THEY WANTED TO ALIGN THEMSELVES TO AN ALLIANCE. Can the Russian ruling elite NEVER UNDERSTAND, THEY CAN BE RESPECTED BUT NOT BE TRUSTED? Sorry I am tired of the theatrics of Russia's ruling elite. If NATO was out to get Russia, 1991 was that moment. Breaking Russia into pieces would have happened at that exact time because the union was essentially dead and all the cards was on the side of the West. Time to end that delusion of empire because her neighbours are telling them to F-off. Russia can be a great nation again but never in the form which their deluded elite keeps on dreaming of.

@@hyhhy This begun long before 2008. First cracks in Russia-West relations appeared already back in 1994, when Yeltsin warned of a "Cold Peace" after Clinton declared in Budapest a shift from PfP (which Russia had just joined) to a more overt expansion of NATO to Visegrad countries. Ever since then, when NATO has gotten new members, or used its power unilaterally like in Yugoslavia in 1999, Russia has expressed their increasingly harsher opposition, and taken gradual steps away from cooperation towards competition in response. It's not the fault of the whole NATO though, merely the USA that calls the shots. In 2008, Georgia and Ukraine were not allowed into Membership Action Plan, because France and Germany were rightfully concerned about the Russian reaction. It's only the US that is in the position to set the course of NATO. I have no doubt in my mind, that if US wasn't in NATO, NATO would have never expanded in this manner and ignored Russian opposition the same way since the day one.

@@goldbullet50 Yes, but the Ukraine and Georgia step was the final red line.

That's the same argument marxists make about past failed socialist experiments. Blaming people instead of the political systems. "The people who you'd need to make socialism possible did not actually put in the efforts for it to succeed. Soviet Union has 0 years of actual socialism, all that stuff in the 1920's? Just a case of flux before the new state capitalism took control once more."

All I'm hearing from these comments is "Russia bad, stupid Russia failed at democracy, the EU and US still seeing Russia as a threat instead of an ally isn't important at all bro cmon it was all stupid ruskies not knowing how to manage their own country.

Damn thank you! I've taken a look at some of your videos and they look super clean

@@IMPERIALYT Thank you dude!

Democracy cant exist in a capitalist state. The USSR was the only democratic state in the world

"Waah waah democracy in Russia no work because stupid Ruzkis" God damn westerners learn to take a fucking loss

Hi there! Thanks for you critique. Unfortunately, due to my own time constraints I was unable to go deeper into the 'history of authoritarianism' in Russia. I instead thought it would be sufficient to look at the most relevant institutional architecture left over from the Soviet Union, which made democracy less likely to succeed i.e. networks of clientelism, state distributed industry etc. Other than that, I don't really agree with you on your assertion that I talk about it as just 'Russia's fall from democracy' - that is primarily semantics and I do actually go over why Russia's 'democratic experiment' was a failure. I definitely do not imply that Democracy was something that had been there for a while, and that Russia just happened to backslide - I say explicitly that Russian 'democracy' came about in 1991 and was then onwards gradually eroded by the remaining institutions of the Soviet Union, Economic Turmoil, International humiliation etc. I understand where you are coming from when you criticize my use of 'putin would make sure authoritarianism was no fad', because in a grander calculus, it was just Russia returning to an authoritarian status quo - but as I wanted the video to be self-contained I thought it would be a good ending to reinforce that Putin's ascent to power was the final nail in the coffin for Russia's foray into democracy. Finally, I think I do go over what nationalists wanted to some degree (although mind you I found in my research they were just as vague in practical aims, in many cases they did just vaguely point to the notion of former glory and contrast it with the poor state of affairs at the time). I discuss how Zhirinovsky wanted to end Russia's humiliation on the international stage, how nationalists wanted to regain a sense of superpower status (manifested in the quote about Soviet tanks by Yuri Vdovin). I also look at how nationalists were using economic turmoil to push for a shift away from democracy (Nevzerov quote 5:25) - which they obviously wanted to do away with. I do agree I could have contextualized it slightly better - but I feel the time requirements were not worth a full on cold war contextual integration when as a self contained video it explained most of the realpolitik reasons as to why Russian democracy failed anyway. I agree with your final point though, that poverty definitely shifted them towards nationalism/authoritarianism in order to reclaim former 'greatness', which I believe the video makes clear but also states that it was combined with the distrust of democracy and international 'humiliation'. Anyway, thanks for your criticism - I hoped you at least enjoyed the rest of the video

Russia is bad, that's not really a question or an opinion thing. The question is how bad.

It's happening :)

@@yaya_is_real Well, he is a Democrat, so his love for democracy can't be surprising.

Holy shit. Never thought I'd see you on a video like this

In order it goes Synthesia by Blake Ewing, The Wraith, Last Run & Midnight Chase by Tokyo Rose

@@IMPERIALYT thx!

Thanks for the input - on this video I actually challenged myself to argue a side that I wouldn’t usually take. I’m personally of the opinion that NATO expansion was fairly marginal, and only exacerbated existing nationalist tendencies.

@@IMPERIALYT completely agree with that opinion personally and that aproach of defending a stand you may not completely agree for the sake of the argument itself. Great respect.

Exactly, the way he puts the 3D into these graphics what baffles me also. Truly genuine work.

It's too late for this

This, we will not impute to their people what their idiotic government brainwashed them into.

People who think like you are becoming a minority, sadly

EU has clearly made it clear that it sees all Russians as enemies.They are even confiscating holiday gifts.

Most russians support putin and his war. Letting them in Europe will only show that putinism pays off for them

Oligarchs came into power thanks to western financial institution advising Russia to sell it's assets for pennies. It created these Oligarchs whose corruption nearly destroyed Russia.

Baltics and Poland were begging to join NATO. Clinton administration was bullish on even letting them join due to the belief that the cold war was over

for the west, it really seems like a forced choice: the eastern European countries wanted in, Democratic referendums said so. To deny them would signal political weakness or irrational subservience to a relatively weak (at the time) Russia, and would almost certainly have resulted in the election of new, pro expansion, politicians.

they wanted in, poland, checzoslovakia, chec republic, the baltics, a lot of these countries got treated like shit by russia, polands hate for russia goes back about 400 years, soviet tanks rolling through hungary and checzoslovakia when they wanted to be more independet from the soviet union all played a role.

@@sugandesenuds6663 When you start citing 400-year-old grievances as your pretext for belligerence, you look like either an idiot or a liar.

@@sugandesenuds6663 Poland's hate for Russia goes back far further

i think russia wanted to be feared again, that its word ment something. Now we are all laughing at them.

@@sugandesenuds6663 Well, now i'm laughing at Ukraine.

Ofcourse, Countries will vote against war but if you look at bigger picture then nobody outside of west buys western propaganda about Ukraine war.

It kind of does. Yet, what would you propose as a solution? Would you justify Russia's subjugation of her neighbours as the correct course of action?

@@EarthForces IKR. Instead, we should do nothing about our failed political structures, brazenly lecture others about theirs and about their abhorrent practices of imperial subjugation, all while we ourselves engage in the very same abhorrent practices. That's the correct course of action for sure and will keep us earning love and goodwill from the rest of the world.

My man, if you listen to the Voiceover I’m saying that Russia wanted to turn Turkey into a rump state. That map is depicting Turkey in such a scenario, with some of their territories divested from them by Russia. A rump state is a successor state to a country that has its territories drastically reduced. It’s not supposed to be a contemporary map of Turkey.

@@IMPERIALYT Sorry my bad. I couldn't understand that, because of my english.

No It doesn’t

The only way to do this is a massive economic and political assistance in building a democratic state (not like in 90's) so most of russians would have at least basic means to survive so they would have any time and resources to participate in a democratic process. It's ofc much harder than it was in microstates like Baltic countries but without that it will just come to another attempt on russia's neighbours in some future.

"South America" Mf are you serious? The only thing you yanks did here was staging coups and helping the dictatorships to "disappear people" with the whole Escuela de las Americas thing. Stop taking the credit for everything because we fought the pentagon backed dictatorships and won our own democracies.

Not always. The USA and UK and France made it through the Great Depression with their democracies intact.

@@baneofbanes True! Infact (at least here in the U.S) those democracies further strengthened. I suppose the inverse is true...

Pretty much what happened in 1920s Germany.

@@EarthForces it is very diffrent germany was capitalist since 1871

That just goes to show the russian people are mostly uneducated, conditioned and brainwashed into thinking that somehow the west wants to harm them. It is precisely this which makes most countries around the world despise the russian people not just the regime.

Russia is indeed afraid of NATO expansion as nothing good came out of west moving towards Russian borders.

Bollocks. Sacrifices never were Russia's foremost priority. From other hand it is acceptable losses for the higher ups.

That's what I liked about this video honestly. It doesn't solely pin the blame on either the west or Russia. Looking at the big picture, it does indeed seem like this democratic movement was set up to fail from the start for a myriad of reasons. Its failure could have been delayed or moderated, but I don't see Russia ever coming out of the 90's with a optimistic or positive view of democracy. The main question I think is, how could this be avoided in the future? What steps should be taken in a hypothetical post-Putin/post-Imperialistic Russia to ensure it won't just be another repeat of the 90's?