Next time you link a 40 minutes long video with an introduction that is unrelated to the point you are making, could you please add a starting time? I watched the first 10 minutes, then gave up.
So not sure whether this is relevant, but to me “multi-lateralism” sounds like a dog whistle for making Russia great again. At least, whenever people mention something like that, in my experience it always implies that we should somehow help Russia become a world superpower. I mean, people talk about the world being unilateral or multilateral, but when you listen to them for a longer time, it becomes clear that they would consider the world with USA and Russia being the only big players as sufficiently multilateral, while a world with e.g. USA, EU, China, India being big players and Russia a small player is insufficiently multilateral for them.
From my perspective… well, the world in the 1984 novel was technically multilateral, so it is not necessarily a good thing.
Next time you link a 40 minutes long video with an introduction that is unrelated to the point you are making, could you please add a starting time? I watched the first 10 minutes, then gave up.
So not sure whether this is relevant, but to me “multi-lateralism” sounds like a dog whistle for making Russia great again. At least, whenever people mention something like that, in my experience it always implies that we should somehow help Russia become a world superpower. I mean, people talk about the world being unilateral or multilateral, but when you listen to them for a longer time, it becomes clear that they would consider the world with USA and Russia being the only big players as sufficiently multilateral, while a world with e.g. USA, EU, China, India being big players and Russia a small player is insufficiently multilateral for them.
From my perspective… well, the world in the 1984 novel was technically multilateral, so it is not necessarily a good thing.