Sarah Paine — How Russia sabotaged China's rise

In this lecture, military historian Sarah Paine explains how Russia—and specifically Stalin—completely derailed China’s rise, slowing them down for over a century. This lecture was particularly interesting to me because, in my opinion, the Chinese Civil War is 1 of the top 3 most important events of the 20th century. And to understand why it transpired as it did, you need to understand Stalin’s role in the whole thing. Watch on YouTube https://youtu.be/RH_ycZYH8-s; read the transcript https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/sarah-paine-russo-chinese. Sponsors Mercury https://mercury.com helps you run your business better. It’s the banking platform we use for the podcast — we love that we can see our cash balance, AR, and AP all in one place. Join us (and over 200,000 other entrepreneurs) at mercury.com https://mercury.com Labelbox https://labelbox.com/dwarkesh scrutinizes public benchmarks at the single data-row level to probe what’s really being evaluated. Using this knowledge, they can generate custom training data for hill climbing existing benchmarks, or design new benchmarks from scratch. Learn more at labelbox.com/dwarkesh https://mercury.com To sponsor a future episode, visit dwarkesh.com/advertise https://www.dwarkesh.com/advertise. Timestamps (00:00:00) – How Russia took advantage of China’s weakness (00:22:58) – After Stalin, China’s rise (00:33:52) – Russian imperialism (00:45:23) – China’s and Russia’s existential problems (01:04:55) – Q&A: Sino-Soviet Split (01:22:44) – Stalin’s lessons from WW2 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.dwarkesh.com https://www.dwarkesh.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Sarah Paine?

  People are worried about whether there's going to be an enduring relationship with China and Russia. And if you look at this picture, the relations look more glacial than cordial, and the little one's hauling on the arm of the big one. And one wonders about that. So it turns out, my expertise is on Russo-Chinese relations. And that's what I studied in graduate school. My dissertation was a history of their border from the Opium Wars, the mid-19th century, until Outer Mongolia was snatched from the Chinese sphere of influence and parked in the Russian sphere in the 1920s. So it's fun to talk about this particular topic.

• 0:45Sarah Paine?

  Before I get going, I'm going to do some terminology. I'm going to use the word "Russia" to refer to the Tsarist, Soviet, and modern periods, the same way that you use France to describe its many monarchies and many republics. The Bolsheviks thought they were special, so they came up with special words for special people: Soviets, Soviet Union. But it turns out, they were temporary, and Russia is the enduring thing. So that's it on terminology. Before I speculate on what the future is going to look like, our only database that we have is whatever happened from this second backwards, what people call "history," but it's just whatever is in the past. That's it.

• 1:30Sarah Paine?

  That's our database. And so I'm going to look at when Russia was strong and China was weak, from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century, then the reversal of the power balance, and then in the recent period, when China has been strong and Russia weak. China and Russia actually discovered each other late in their histories. It was the early part of their last dynasties, when the Russians were after fur. Very lucrative in those days, and that brings them out to the Pacific. But their relations are only episodic until we get to the mid 19th century, which is where my story is going to begin. So in the 18th century, China was strong, Russia was weak.

• 2:13Sarah Paine?

  But that one doesn't last very long. And both empires followed the rules for continental empire. And if you want to survive in a continental world, that's what both of them historically have been. You don't want to have two-front wars because you have multiple neighbors, any one of them that can come in at any time. And if they gang up on you, that's trouble. So you take on one at a time. Also, you don't want any great powers on the borders. This is the fundamental problem with their relationship, is because today's friend can be tomorrow's foe. And that is truly problematic. So what do you do to solve that problem? Well, you take on your neighbors sequentially. You set them up to fail. You destabilize the rising and just the failing, and you set up buffer zones in between.

• 2:58Sarah Paine?

  And you wait the opportune moment to pounce and absorb. And that is Vladimir Putin's game. But if you play this game, you're surrounding yourself by failing states because you're either busy destabilizing them or ingesting them. So the curious might ask, are Russia and China unlucky with all the very dysfunctional places that surround them? Or are they complicit? Also, there are no enduring alliances in this world because the neighbors figure it out that the hegemonic power offers nothing but trouble in the long term. And there's also no counsel on when to stop expanding. So both Russia and China are known for overextending, overdoing it. And then that may help explain some of their periodic implosions

• 3:43Sarah Paine?

  over their long and bloody histories. Very high mortality rates. Before you dismiss this paradigm, you've seen it operating in real time in Syria and Ukraine. There are people who do this. And it also explains why all those ancient ruins are ruins. This sort of warfare is ruinous. But anyway, it lies at the basis of many of the great civilizations of Eurasia. This is how they did things. All right. So I'm going to start my story in the mid 19th century, when the Chinese were beset by a whole series of rebellions that just about wrecked them. And the Russians take advantage of all of this.

• 4:26Sarah Paine?

  Remember the second rule of continental empires, no great power neighbors. And the Russians repeatedly derail the rise of China by scripting the Chinese to do things that are remarkably detrimental to Chinese interests but pretty good for Russian interests. And it takes the Chinese a long time to figure it out. They have governments coming and going in this period. It's a difficult period, but they eventually figure it out by the time Mao reunifies China in 1949. So I'm going to go through each of those examples in turn, starting with a really big one, which are the Opium Wars. This is when Britain and France are coming at China in order to force China to trade on their terms.

• 5:08Sarah Paine?

  And this corresponds with the two biggest rebellions of China's period of rebellions, the Taiping and the Nian Rebellion. So here's a big chart that's a simplified chart. The rebellions actually start in the late 18th centuries. The rebellions are misnomer. These are civil wars. Either people are like minority peoples who want out of empire, they want to secede. Other people who want to overthrow the government in Beijing. The peak period is in red, the really big ones are in white. So China has got the two-front war problem, right? It's got Europeans coming at them plus all of this. In fact, the Chinese have so many fronts, they don't know how to deal with it. So the Russians come on in to the Chinese and say, hey, we can deal with the British

• 5:52Sarah Paine?

  and French for you and solve that problem, and then you can deal with all the internal stuff. However, we need to have you sign a couple pieces of paper for us. The Treaty of Yagun of 1858, the Treaty of Peking of 1860, what do they do? They cede to Russia large swaths of territory in Central Asia and the Pacific coastline. And the Qing Dynasty, they're vague on geography, they're beset by these other things, they don't understand that Europeans think these pieces of paper are permanent things, and they figure that once they put their house back in order, they're going to come back and get the territory later. Okay, the second example of ruinous Russian mediation.

• 6:32Sarah Paine?

  That is going to keep China in turmoil. So in the first Sino-Japanese War, Japan trounces China, boots them from their tributary in Korea. And then the Japanese also want some territory on the Liao Dung Peninsula that isn't labeled very well there. But anyhow, what the Chinese do is they go to the Russians to help them counterbalance Japan so that Japan doesn't take this Chinese territory in the Asian mainland. Russia gets its buddies, France and Germany, the so-called triple intervention, to gang up on Japan. And Japan looks at it, three great powers, I don't think so. So they bail.

• 7:15Sarah Paine?

  So from the Chinese point of view, so far, so good. Except, what the Russians promptly do is take for themselves the very territory that had just been denied to Japan. And the story gets worse. Because all the European powers, or many of them, plus Japan come in and they carve out big concession areas throughout China so that China's not going to have full sovereignty over its territory for several generations. So instead of one relatively small Japanese concession area, they get foreigners everywhere. And so think about Second Rule Continental Empire, no great power neighbors, not happening while this is going on. Well, the Bolsheviks come to power and then they're going to apply these rules as well.

• 8:00Sarah Paine?

  When they do come to power, they're very weak because Russia's been devastated by World War I. And then the Bolsheviks don't win their own bitter civil war until 1922. And so then as now, they relied on a really cheap but incredibly effective strategy of strategic communication. The Russians really understand other people's emotional life and what sets them at odds with each other. And they know just how to serve out the propaganda that sets people at each other's throats. And their propaganda is going to help the Chinese really despise the Japanese and the Europeans while Russia's even greater predations,

• 8:44Sarah Paine?

  the ones you've already seen, go unnoticed. So here's Lev Karachan. He was a deputy foreign minister. In 1919, he sends a missive, his Karachan Manifesto, to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. And he says, hey, we're not imperialists, we're Bolsheviks. We're going to return all the lands from those unequal treaties and be your friend from evermore. Unlike all the other evil imperialist powers, we're not like that anymore. And so the Chinese are looking at this and thinking, wow, here are the Bolsheviks who've gotten rid of their imperialistic government, they're putting together their shattered land. And so this offers hope to the Chinese that they can do likewise,

• 9:28Sarah Paine?

  and it's a model potentially to follow, and a mentor who might help them. Except here's the detail. When the Bolsheviks started doing better in their civil war, they really dialed back what their offer was. The original offer was tear up treaties, China gets all territory back, no payments necessary. Under the new version of the Karachan Manifesto, which the Russian Foreign Ministry goes in and telegraphs to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, I've seen the document, or at least a certain copy of it in the archives in Taiwan, they send it back and say, we're willing to talk about these things, we're going to hold some negotiations. Well, the facts are, they didn't return these concession areas to the mid 20th century, 1950s, after the Westerners had returned almost all of their concession

• 10:13Sarah Paine?

  areas. And this is not trivial. And when we think of concession areas in the age of imperialism in China, you think of British ones, right? Hong Kong. Well, Hong Kong isn't actually very big. The reason you know about Hong Kong is it makes lots of money, or at least it used to. And the Russian concession areas were huge, didn't make money, what else is new. But the Russians had by far the largest concession area of any other country. But from the Karachan Manifesto is the origin of the myth of Sino-Soviet friendship, that the Russians somehow treated the Chinese nicely. And the Foreign Ministry officials, who have known better, Their government is overthrown within the decade, and presumably, these documents just gather dust in the archives.

• 10:58Sarah Paine?

  All right, my fourth example of derailing China's rise concerns the First United Front between the Chinese Nationalists and Chinese Communist Party. Here's the leader of the Nationalist Party, and also leader of its armies, Generalissimo Shenkai Shek. Well, he led the Northern Expedition, reunifying China, at least nominally, by either defeating or co-opting all those warlords there. You can see the different colors of where the major warlords were. And previous South China attempts to do this, or to secede from China, one or the other, had failed for lack of a proficient military. But Russia changes that.

• 11:38Sarah Paine?

  It provides aid, arms, and expertise, and structures, and things, to found the Huangpoa Military Academy, which is in Canton or Guangzhou. And that institution is going to educate the officers, both communists and nationalists, who would lead, not only this, but some of their civil war area officers, that make this reunification of China possible. But the Russians had a price. Give the nationalists the aid, but the nationalists then have to let the communists into the Nationalist Party. That's what the United Front is. So, this all coincides with a bitter succession struggle in Russia. This is the problem with dictatorships.

• 12:22Sarah Paine?

  They really don't do succession well. It's why elections are so convenient. Instead, you have Stalin and Trotsky going at it, of which one was going to be the big cheese. Stalin is all about socialism in one country. He thinks that Russia ought to focus on its own internal development, whereas Trotsky says nonsense. We need to focus on world revolution, because only if there are sister revolutions abroad can ours survive. So, while this is all going on, the Chinese communists really want to get out of that United Front. Why? Because it puts them in close proximity to the army, which is controlled by the nationalists, and they're getting worried whether they're about to get killed.

• 13:07Sarah Paine?

  And the Russians say, "No, no, no, no, no. It's good, good, good. You stay in that United Front." So they do. Shanghai Shek goes roaring up China. I've shown you the map. He reaches his pretty home base in Shanghai. Pause. And he turns his guns on the communists and just massacres them in droves. And this is when Mao has to think of a rural strategy to power because the urban strategy is no longer feasible. Well, once this happens, Stalin can use it to just trounce Trotsky in the internal power struggle because it's, look, see, revolution in one country doesn't work abroad. And a lot of Chinese died, proving Stalin's point. All right.

• 13:49Sarah Paine?

  Another example where Russia literally derails the rise of China. There's a railway system there. We're going to talk rails. In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, 1905, Japan wins it and gets from Russia, which built all these things in Chinese territory, the southern half of that railway net in lieu of an indemnity. Japan invests massively in railways, infrastructure, and apparently in local politicians. But the ruling warlord apparently wasn't sufficiently attentive to Japanese needs, so they assassinated him in 1928. So this is his son, Jiang Shilang, who the following year, 1929, decides he wants his railways back from Russia. What does Russia do?

• 14:33Sarah Paine?

  It's not either version of the Karakhan manifesto. The Russians deploy over 100,000 troops, tanks, airplanes that works, and just pound this man. And so they, the Russians, keep their railways. So if you want to delay the rise of China, that sort of thing delays the rise of China. But now for the first rule of continental empire, no two-front wars. You get to, you go, move fast forward to the 1930s, and Stalin thinks he may very well face a two-front war with Germans in the West and Japanese in the East. Why would he think such thoughts? This thing, the Anti-Communist Pact. Communist is short for Communist International. It is the Soviet outreach program. And it's signed in 1936 between the Japanese and the Germans.

• 15:17Sarah Paine?

  And Stalin goes, uh-oh, they're after me. And so he plays every one of his China cards, and he holds lots of them, because then this is also part, if you want to disintegrate the neighbors in order to delay their rise, well, then you fund all sides of their civil wars and any side in between, because you just want them to go at it. So he plays every card he's got. And what he wants are the nationalists to stop fighting the communists, vice versa, and unite to fight the Japanese. And they're willing to do this provided Stalin provides conventional aid, which he does. But they think he's also going to provide soldiers. They don't get it. Once they're in, Russia is out of this thing.

• 15:59Sarah Paine?

  And Stalin's plan, his script for the Chinese and Japanese, works beautifully. Because when the nationalists unite in the second united front with the communists going back to the dark side, the Japanese are apoplectic. And this is when they do the massive escalation in 1937. And they are off to overextension into parts due south of Russia. So this two-front Japanese-German war never materialized. Stalin, very successful. Chinese, less so. Because the Chinese are fighting the Japanese so the Russians don't have to. And that comes at the price of millions of deaths, millions of refugees. That does indeed derail China's rise yet again.

• 16:40Sarah Paine?

  Next example, per the Yalta Agreement, Russia finally gets in the war in Asia. About time. And in the very final weeks, in this August storm, when the Russians deploy like 1.5 million soldiers, it's one of the largest military operations of World War II. And then they rapidly take Manchuria. And they also do some, that would be the normal thing, but here's the abby-normal thing. They also take away Manchuria's industrial base. That would not normally be what you do to someone. They take 83% of the electrical power equipment, take it home to Russia, not turning lights on in Manchuria. 86% of mining, 82% of cement making, 80% of metalworking equipment.

• 17:25Sarah Paine?

  Plus, they take 640,000 Japanese POWs to be slave labor for decades, if they ever get home at all. And they also take the Northern Islands, which are still under dispute today. But if you think about it, if you're going to do indemnities or reparations, whatever this is, China had been fighting Japan in one form or another for 15 long years. Russia comes in at the cameo performance at the very end. So if there are indemnities to be paid for whatever Japan did in this war, surely China, not Russia, should have been the recipient for all this stuff. In addition, another example, so not only does Stalin walk away with the industrial

• 18:10Sarah Paine?

  base, but he walks away with Mongolia as well. How does that work? The Yalta Agreement also stipulates that the status quo shall be maintained in Mongolia. So then you have to look at, well, what was the status quo? It was called Russian sphere of influence in the north, Chinese continuing control in the south. That Mongolia, which had always been both those places, had been part of the Qing Empire, had never been part of the Russian Empire. And moreover, Stalin had already taken Tana Tuva in 1944, and it looks small on this map, but it's bigger than England, had lots of gold, which the Soviets had monetized long ago. So if you add up all the territory that the Russians took from the Chinese sphere

• 18:54Sarah Paine?

  of influence, from the 1858 Treaty of Iguan and 1860 Treaty of Peking, fast forward to detaching Outer Mongolia from the Chinese sphere of influence, here's what it really is: It's greater than all US territory east of the Mississippi. This is not your normal land ground. So talk about derailing somebody, that would do it. To be fair to the Russians, they did, albeit slowly, turn over all this Japanese stockpile of military equipment in Manchuria, turned it over to the communists. And they also, albeit belatedly, they trained them how to use the equipment and also how to run the Manchurian railway system. And the Chinese communists, as a rural peasant movement, how would they know how to do these things? They wouldn't.

• 19:38Sarah Paine?

  And it allows this conventional aid and logistics of being able to move people around, it transforms the communists from a lightly armed guerrilla movement to a very heavily armed conventional forces capable for the showdown phase of the Chinese Civil War. So, like the Huangpoa Military Academy, this is essential aid for the communist victory. So it's into the, neither the communists or the nationalists complain about the deindustrialization of Manchuria. And the communists probably traded that industry for all the conventional aid that they got. And the nationalists are trading that and also outer Mongolian independence for a

• 20:20Sarah Paine?

  promise from Stalin not to aid the communists, which is a promise that he promptly breaks. So Mao starts to figure out that something is up here. So when he's on a roll in his offensives in the civil war, there's really bitter fighting. And the real movement in the last phase, the post-1940 phase of the Chinese Civil War is in 1948. That year Mao just moves. And he is roaring down south and he's about to get the Yangtze River. And Stalin's like, hey buddy, take a break at the Yangtze, don't exhaust yourself. And Mao ignores it. Because whereas Stalin might have wanted to keep nationalist rump states south of the Yangtze River, yielding a divided China, in keeping with weakening your neighbor,

• 21:04Sarah Paine?

  Mao is not remotely interested in that. And here's my 10th example, which is the Korean War. If you look at the Korean War, the first year is a war of movement. There's up and down, up and down the peninsula. It's unbelievable how much movement there is. But then it's stalemates for the last two years. And you think, well, what's going on? Why don't they settle the war sooner? Because both sides are taking incredible losses. Well, here's how it goes. Once China intervenes in the Korean War, and once they halt various offensives to start peace talks, the Chinese do incredible tunnel work, and probably the North Koreans as well, and build an incredible tunnel system.

• 21:46Sarah Paine?

  So it means the South Koreans and the UN forces are never going to get anywhere near the Soviet border ever again. And from that moment on, Stalin thinks he's got a low-risk, high-reward strategy, where he's going to weaken the United States and delay the rise of China. So what's not to love about fighting to the last Chinese in Korea? Stalin thinks this is great. And it's going to retard Chinese development. It's also because China is so isolated by this war. It has no international friends but Russia. It's going to tie China to Russia ever more firmly and give Russia breathing space to rebuild after World War II, while its Western enemies are wasting time in Korea.

• 22:29Sarah Paine?

  So if you put it all together, Chinese Civil War, Korean War, Russia's on and off aid, on and off again aid to the... Different sides in the civil war, his double dealing with Bonham, and what happened with Atom Mongolia and the Manchurian industrial base, Stalin's advice to Mao to halt at the Yangtze, and then he's fighting to the last Chinese in Korea. This is all consistent with the second rule of continental empire, no great power neighbors. All right, once Stalin dies, finest day of his life,

• 23:03Sarah Paine?

  there's never as strong a leader in Russia again. And by this time Mao has figured out that the Russians don't want a strong China. He has to bide his time for a while, but he understands what is going on. And Mao has a growing list of gripes. It's not only he didn't like Stalin's tributary treatment, but also Mao thinks with his resume that he should become the leader of international communism. And Stalin's successor Nikita Khrushchev is like, no way. And Khrushchev does not have remotely Mao's resume. Mao has just put together a continent by reunifying China. That's not remotely what Khrushchev's ever been able to do.

• 23:45Sarah Paine?

  And Mao also can't stand either Khrushchev's domestic or foreign policy. Domestically, Khrushchev is all about deshonalization. Well, Mao doesn't like that. He's got a cult of personality. He doesn't want to do things like that. And then Khrushchev is interested in peaceful coexistence with the West, or at least nominally. Whereas Mao is in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, which is based on a virally anti-Western foreign policy. And then they're forever squabbling about who's aiding Vietnam and the North Vietnam and the Vietnam War, and who's going to get credit for it. So all of that's going on. Now, Khrushchev has his own gripes about the Chinese. He looks around at the United States. The United States has got basing all over the world. Its allies allow the United States to have bases.

• 24:30Sarah Paine?

  And China has hardly any Russian bases, these leftover concession areas. And China wants them back. And Khrushchev can't understand this. And then what he really can't understand are the two Taiwan Strait crises of 1954 and 1958, where Mao starts lobbying ordinance on nationalist islands that are very close to mainland shores.

• 24:52Sarah Paine?

  Khrushchev is apoplectic because Mao hasn't given him any advance warning. And by the way, this sort of thing could trigger some of the security clauses of the Sino-Soviet friendship treaty with nuclear follow-on effects. And then while this is going on, Khrushchev wants to have a combined subfleet vase. If we're going to take all these risks, we need to have subs in different places. Mao says, no way. And then Khrushchev has fed up and said, well, you're not going to get the plans for the atomic bomb. Okay. And the whole thing becomes public in 1960 with anger all around. And the two, Russia and China, squabbled incessantly over the Vietnam War.

• 25:33Sarah Paine?

  And the North Vietnamese were interested in getting maximum aid from both, which it did. And they begged the Chinese to allow the Russians to ship things overland through China. So the Chinese felt obliged to do it. But the terms of that overland trade were just food for all kinds of squabbling. It just didn't end. So the story of the reversal in the balance of power between Russia and China arose from multiple factors. It doesn't happen all at once. It is both a story of China's rise and of Russia's decline. And step one for China is getting its own atomic weapon, which it does in 1964, so they can get itself free of Soviet bondage.

• 26:17Sarah Paine?

  And so this is in 1964, after they've detonated that bomb, where Mao goes, okay, there are too many places occupied by the Soviet Union. The Russians took everything they could. We have not yet presented an account for this list of stolen territory, all the territory I've shown you. We want it back. Russians, jaw drops, panic. And the Chinese then are much more aggressive about what they consider to be their territorial rights. And there is a border war over territories, and in particular, this one island, Jambo or Damansky Island in the Ammer River. All right, here's how riverine borders work, international ones.

• 26:59Sarah Paine?

  Under international law, the border is the Fauweg, which is the center of the main channel of whatever the river is. And Russia had followed that with its European borders. Not with China, it claimed both banks of the Amur. Well, the Chinese are fed up with that and they take Jambao Island. And the Russians are furious and they come to the United States and they say, would it be okay if we nuke these people? And we're like, no. So then the Russians scratch their head and they come back and they go, okay, would it be okay if we use conventional weapons to blow up their nuclear stuff? And we go, no, still not okay. And Mao gets it. The one that wants to nuke you is your primary adversary.

• 27:43Sarah Paine?

  So there's a reshuffling of the primary adversaries. So that formerly, the United States was a primary adversary of both China and Russia. So that would be a reason for them to cooperate. Well, now they're primary adversaries for each other. And the United States can play the swing thing with all of this. And for Russia, it's really devastating having China as an enemy because it's going to have to deploy mechanized nuclear armed troops all along its really long Chinese border, Central Asia the works. And it's already doing this with its European borders and occupying Eastern Europe, which garrison costs are significant. Imagine if this country had to put those kinds of forces

• 28:28Sarah Paine?

  on our long Canadian and Mexican borders. It'd be bankrupting and their economy was and remains a fraction of ours. But this breaking up of the earlier version of the bromance allows the United States to play the swing role and then we cooperate. Both Nixon and Mao think ganging up on Russia would be a good thing and overextending Russia financially by overextending it militarily with all this, these armaments and things. So in addition, what's going as part of China's rise are internal reforms under Deng Xiaoping, when he abandoned certain communist principles of economic management and gets much more productive agricultural sector and industry and commerce.

• 29:10Sarah Paine?

  And so China's running double digit growth rates for about 20 years with significant compounding effects. Okay, that's the story of China's rise. Now for this dystopian alternate universe of Russian decline.

• 29:25Sarah Paine?

  You have pictured here on the left is Leonid Brezhnev, who apparently had a really a stroke in 1976 that permanently impaired his thinking, and which his death in 1982 finished off. And then he was replaced by Yuriy Dropov, whose own health was pretty paralysed, and he dies within two years. And then Konstantin Chernyenko barely makes it a year before he's dead. I mean, it sort of sounds like us. But anyway, it doesn't work well. So if you look at Soviet growth statistics, they're really good. Right after the end of World War II, they're busy rebuilding.

• 30:08Sarah Paine?

  But then, when you get to the mid-'70s, they're going into terminal decline. So when Gorbachev comes to power in 1985, Soviet growth rates have been either 1% to 2% less than US growth rates for the preceding decade. And the compounding effects of that are pretty horrendous. In addition, other problems. Leonid Brezhnev was in power for 18 long years. And not only did he collect cars, that was apparently the go-to gift for him, but in addition, he was collecting a bunch of non-performing pals across the Third World, because this is benefiting Russian power. But it's expensive, and he doesn't have much of an economy to pay for it. And if you look at oil prices,

• 30:50Sarah Paine?

  they're very much associated with the decline of the Soviet Union, rise of Vladimir Putin. And it's because in the Soviet era, government budgets relied as much as 55% on oil or energy revenues. And so, piggy banks are going to shrink if oil prices aren't doing very well. And so Gorbachev repeatedly said, you know, "We can't live this way anymore." And so he wanted, and he did, initiate political and economic reforms to try to save communism, except he really ruined the sclerotic patient doing what he did. And there are massive territorial implications for what he did. And it's the loss of empire in Eastern Europe, and also the loss-

• 31:35Sarah Paine?

  Of the ethnically based constituent republics of the Soviet Union. So I'm going to show you this territorial Russia's territorial odyssey in maps. So this is 38. It is before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Nazi-Soviet Pact, where they're dividing up Poland and parts of Eastern Europe, Nazis and Soviets, and what they want. This is before then. But by the time you get to the end of the war, Russia's got the Baltic States, it's got Kaliningrad, it's got all of Belarus, all of Ukraine. And then, of course, it gets Eastern Europe. Well, with Gorbachev, he works his magic. You're down to Kaliningrad. Okay, that's where Russians stage a lot of weapons nowadays, apparently dump a lot

• 32:19Sarah Paine?

  of toxic waste. So that's what Kaliningrad's all about. So it was significant so that at the end of 1991, when Russia's lost everything, they're down to a much diminished rump state and then followed by years of instability in Russia.

• 32:38Dwarkesh Patel?

  Mercury is my banking platform, and I basically use it to run this whole business. I use it to invoice my sponsors and to automatically pay bills. I even have payroll set up with recurring payments going out to all my editors. But maybe it's not intuitive why it's so helpful to have all of these things run through the same platform. So let me give you an example. As my business has gotten more complicated, in order to figure out how much money I'll have in a week or a month in the future, I need to know not just how much cash we have on hand, but also what our open invoices are with sponsors and what bills we owe to other people. With Mercury, I can easily figure out this number by taking our current cash balance and then netting it out with all our open invoices and upcoming bills, all added up, which Mercury tallies for me.

• 33:23Dwarkesh Patel?

  And this is actually super valuable. You know, sometimes I like to make crazy YOLO AI vets, and Mercury makes me feel super confident about exactly how much money I can take out of our business while still having enough left over to pay bills and to pay taxes. Visit mercury.com to join me and 200,000 other entrepreneurs who use Mercury. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided through Choice Financial Group, Colomne A, and Evolve Bank and Trust, members FDIC.

• 33:52Sarah Paine?

  When Russians measure.

• 33:55Sarah Paine?

  Well, they agree on that their country always has been, always should be, always will be, a great power, but they don't measure it in wealth, because their wealth has always been much less than their Western neighbors, although they often confiscate the wealth of other people. So what they measure, their strength, greatness, is in vast territorial extent and the ability to run roughshod over others and make them do whatever it is Russia wants. And also, when they look at their security, they also look at it this way, is that we need this vast territorial extent to be secure, but they never turn it around, so they're

• 34:37Sarah Paine?

  always worried about other people invading them, to think, "Well, do you suppose we pose a threat to anybody else?" They never turn it around that way. Except, Russia has posed existential threat to its neighbors forever. There are so many neighbors you have never heard of, because they've disappeared from the pages of history, courtesy of the Russians. Let's go to the medieval period, where Russia starts out as the princely state of Muscovy, Moscow. Well, it wipes out the other princely states. There was Novgorod the Great, was the more progressive place, they wiped that place out. Obskov, Rostov Tere, there are a lot of other places. And then later, they're eliminating the colonies of Central Asia. These are states.

• 35:22Sarah Paine?

  It's a different way of organizing yourself. But the confluence of Crimea, Kazan, Astrahan, Kokon, Kiva, Bohara, they get rid of all of it. And then, there's been this repeated mifecting of European neighbors, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden, and Finland, of taking their territory, one bite at a time, and you can see it going on today. And the Russians just don't see it, that if you do this to other people, this is why, at the end of the Cold War, everyone is stampeding into NATO. It's not some conspiracy, it's just what the Russians have done to them. And now I'm going to illustrate Poland's fate, to show what happens when you're surrounded by rapacious continental empires. Three partitions of Poland in

• 36:04Sarah Paine?

  In the 18th century, this is when Prussia, Austria, and Russia are taking things. The Russians say, but we didn't take Polish territory. They're taking the Polish Empire. It's a technicality. And if you wonder why Poles cannot stand Russians, it would be this. And it would also be the genocide-laced occupation of Poland that went on for several generations after World War II. And, oh, part of that, Yalta, again, the Russians insisted on moving Poland 200 kilometers to the West. That is not the normal thing to do to a country. So it's deep into German territory, so Russia can go eat a big part of Poland. Then Russia decides it's going to cleanse the whole place, ethnically cleanse.

• 36:49Sarah Paine?

  So Germans are going to live in Germany, Poles are going to live in Poland, Ukrainians are going to live in Ukraine, and millions of people, this is a war-devastated Europe where there's no way to take care of refugees, are being sent hither and yon, and lots of them are dying. And for the first time in their histories, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, they've become ethnically homogeneous states. And then Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia require Russian troops to hang on to some of their current gains. So a lot of things go on here. If you compare to what the West is doing to the United States, the United States has

• 37:31Sarah Paine?

  the Marshall Plan, you've heard of it, where the United States is pouring aid into our Western allies to restore them after the war. Well, this is what Russia's doing. A, they've won the war, so their troops are there, but they never take their troops home. Then they're busy running coups. Then they're busy shooting anyone who disagrees with them, or they send them to labor camps, whatever they're going to do. And then they redistribute every form of wealth there is, either through nationalization or collectivization, right? And they're imposing this really non-functional economic model on these people. It's called communism. It doesn't work. So you wonder why Eastern Europeans aren't thrilled about a repeat of this? Well, come on. All right.

• 38:15Sarah Paine?

  Moreover, story gets better. The people who made all this happen include this charmer, some of the most toxic people from the Soviet Union. Andrei Veschinsky, who goes to Romania, lucky Romania's, he was running the show trials that were killing the, sending the original Bolshevik leaders summary execution. What does he do when he gets to Romania? Well, he appoints the ministers of justice, war and the interior. If you do that, you control the courts, army and police. And then you can start expropriating everything and nationalizing things and you can start eliminating other parties and you make Romania trade only with the Soviet Union. Okay. All right. Another toxic personality, Marshal Kliman Voroshilov, who he's another part of the A-list purge team.

• 39:00Sarah Paine?

  What had he done? Signed loads of execution warrants to his military colleagues, officers during the great purges. What a great guy. He's in Hungary, lucky people. He's not quite as competent as the other one because in the elections of 1945 in Hungary, the small holders party wins. Oops, they aren't communists. He doesn't ever make that mistake again. Then he's busily appointing communist ministers to different ministries, the land reform, taking over the civil service, getting the propaganda up and running, taking over youth and women's groups to infiltrate that way and arresting all sorts of non-communist politicians before he holds the 1947 elections, which of course the communists win.

• 39:42Sarah Paine?

  And then afterwards, there's a really big purge, which 10% of the population faces tribunals? Think of that. If this room, 10% of you going to tribunals because Russians are in town? Okay. Russia had a template for block building. This is a, I'm giving you the details because you get a sense of how a continental empire runs business. So the Russians looked at how When Italy surrendered to Western part of the, Western Allies, that they basically just ran the show in Italy. So the Russians are going, "Well, we're gonna, when we accept surrenders, we're gonna run the show in Eastern Europe." But the Russians want to take advantage of the absolute turmoil that wars cause.

• 40:25Sarah Paine?

  Also, wars often lead to war economies, where you've got a lot of centralized government control to run the war effort, so the Russians want to leverage that one. And then they've got this big Red Army presence. Use all of those things, which they do. And here's their template. They're controlling the power ministries. What are they? Defense and interior. If you do that, you're gonna monopolize coercion and eliminate your opposition. If you control the justice and information ministries, you're gonna arrest or kill at will, and then you control all the stories that are never told about this. And then if you control agriculture, particularly in those days, you're gonna buy a lot of allegiance by redistributing other people's lands, and that's gonna wipe out class enemies, collaborators, all such people you don't like, and the original elite that have been running rural areas.

• 41:09Sarah Paine?

  And they also had a story that they told about this. It's the big lie. Remember communism? What is the really bad people in the communist story of how we all live? It's the imperialists, right? Imperialism's really bad. Well, I've just shown you that Russians were the greatest practitioners of imperialism of the 20th century, and they're doing this right as Western imperialists are giving up their colonies. And yet, this big lie, the big fiction that the Russians are somehow nice guys, they're using democratic forms, like they don't eliminate Poland as a state, as the czars had done. Still call Poland, but it's a fiction that it's independent. It's not. And there's a fiction that they hold elections, but they're not democratic. We already know the outcome.

• 41:54Sarah Paine?

  And it's a dictatorship in reality, and they're just purging the place. I mean, they're killing lots of Eastern Europeans. So if you think Eastern Europeans don't remember this, they most certainly do. And then... There is a more regional template for how you do this. I've already talked about ethnic cleansing. They did that. And then they tried moving countries, right? Poland to the west, Mongolia I haven't talked about. It was to the east in the Chinese territory. And then they want to take some stepping stones for later expansion. So that's what Kaliningrad is all about. Another one is Moldova. That is territory between Romania and Russia on very important river systems. And Moldova's got problems with a place called Transnistria, which the Russians have poached. So that story is still ongoing.

• 42:39Sarah Paine?

  And also, places like Azerbaijan. It's split between Iran and, well, now it's independent Azerbaijan, but it was split with the Soviet Union. And then there are the divided states of Germany, Korea, Mongolia, and China. You want all your neighbors quarreling over their borders so that Russia can then set the terms and that it can nibble them away a bite at a time, or if it can take a whole thing, good for them. So Russian national identity is not only about empire, territorial extent, it also has some big ideas attached to it. An ideology that somehow this territorial expansion is either progressive, beneficial, or positive.

• 43:23Sarah Paine?

  It's a myth. So under the czars, the ideology was this Third Rome of the Russian Orthodox Church. Third Rome was in Moscow. I know, this is news to you. I'll explain how it works. So there's the Rome we all know about. The Rome Rome. That was Rome number one, the one where the Pope is. Rome number two, according to the Russians, has to do with the Byzantine Empire, and that was Constantinople or Istanbul. So when that falls, the Russians go, ta-da, it's Moscow. Not really. But they use this Russian orthodoxy and spread the Russian Orthodox Church back in the day, deep into Eastern Europe. So when the communists get in, they're not spreading Russian orthodoxy, they're spreading

• 44:08Sarah Paine?

  communism. The problem for Putin is today neither communism nor Russian orthodoxy are marketable ideologies. So he's just stuck with being a really big place. That's where his little focus is. And Russia has a nightmare scenario. They don't always win these wars. They lose quite often. And the Mongol yoke, or the yellow peril, their terminology, not mine. Is the 13th century when the Mongols just swept in and the Russian elites became tax collectors for the Mongols, an extractive role that has endured. You think about Russians, they extract resources, their own, other people's, but they're not known for producing

• 44:50Sarah Paine?

  wealth. It's just resource extraction. And this is some of the legacy of all of that one. And the Russians have also suffered devastating defeats to Napoleon in World War I and World War II that just devastated Western Russia. So they've had bad times. And in our own time, Putin is dumping all of his ordinance on Ukraine, leaving Siberia wide open to China's ambitions. So if he keeps the game up, he may well wind up with a Chinese yoke, and his nightmare will be there for him. The Chinese also have their own big ideas, not religious ideas or empire, but about

• 45:30Sarah Paine?

  civilization itself. The idea traditionally that the Chinese believe there's only one civilization that would be theirs. It's based on Confucianism. That would be a world order unto itself. And that worked for them for a couple thousand years. And there are certain pillars of legitimacy that have endured, are probably originating this, but enduring one. And one is ethical rule. Well, that's gone for the Communist Party. Let's try the next one. Economic prosperity. Whoops, going fast. That leaves the communists today with territorial expansion. Well, that's ongoing, with territory incursions into India, South China Sea island building, and then all these gathering threats to Taiwan. And in part,

• 46:15Sarah Paine?

  what's going on is the Communist Party wants everyone to, he wants to play the nationalism card, the same way Putin is. If you haven't gotten anything else for you, play jingoistic nationalism, because we human beings tend to be particularly attentive to that one. And so that if you focus on that, maybe the Chinese people won't look at the ethical lapses of the Communist Party, or the fact that their paychecks aren't going anywhere anymore. So good old Xi, he doesn't have a marketable ideology anymore. And what's really scary...

• 46:48Sarah Paine?

  Is Confucianism had just been this enduring feature of China. Dynasties came and went, but Confucianism stayed until China was unable to fend off Japan in the first Sino-Japanese War that I told you about, in the Europeans, in the Opium Wars, when all of a sudden Confucianism just seems totally inadequate. And so when enough Chinese cease believing in Confucianism, that's when you get the 1911 Revolution, and it just vanishes as an organizing principle for running your government. And this is the total nightmare, one of the frightening things for the Communist Party is when people cease believing in Communism.

• 47:31Sarah Paine?

  So when China's nightmare scenario is these horrible periods of chaos, they're afraid of if the Communists go, that China's going to devolve into these civil wars, these periods of war. And their second one is that maybe Russia, or the Soviet Union, when it shattered, that may well be their fate, that maybe these Communist regimes can't last forever. So Russia's nightmare scenario is other people invading Russia. China's nightmare scenario is the collapse of China. It's two different ways, two different things to worry about. And the Chinese face a conundrum.

• 48:11Sarah Paine?

  If you no longer believe the economic theories on which Communism is based, well, how do you justify one-party rule? And the Communist Party has tried to soldier on without solving that problem. And the Chinese have, I think, learned a great deal from watching Russians as they play around with big ideas. And I think they learned a great deal from Mikhail Gorbachev when he tries to fix Communism, but he winds up killing the patient. And the Chinese, I think, their takeaways from what Gorbachev did is, don't hesitate to deploy the tanks. If you got unrest in the streets, you just send tanks. Tanks against civilians, it's a really quick fix.

• 48:54Sarah Paine?

  And you want to focus on economic reforms to the extent you can, certainly not political reforms, and you really want to cinify your minorities. Why? And the Soviet Union, the...

• 49:08Sarah Paine?

  Russians had had this fiction that all these occupied minority people wanted to be there and had equal rights, and so they would sponsor all the nice folk dances and the language classes, and they'd have a bunch of token minorities in traditional dress and various political institutions, but basically they had no power. But it meant when the Soviet Union shattered, there were plausible divisions already set there, set up on an ethnic basis, and that is how you get places like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc. China's like, "No way." So this helps explain the genocide of the Uighurs that's ongoing now. I think this is their rationale for doing it. And then what you want to do, and you can see Xi Jinping doing it, is you want to prioritize

• 49:50Sarah Paine?

  maintaining the monopoly of the Chinese Communist Party over economic efficiency when those two things run at cross purposes. And that, I think, helps explain some of Xi Jinping's growth-depressing choices that he's making. What Gorbachev discovered when he tried to reform communism is that democracy and communism just don't mix. If you give people elections, they're going to support multiple parties. Also, when the communist track record becomes known of their incompetent economic management, summary executions, famines, just all the things that they've been up to, it's very hard for them to remain in power. Also, as Gorbachev discovered, democracy and empire don't mix.

• 50:31Sarah Paine?

  When you give different minorities a choice of whether, or occupied places, a choice to leave or stay, they bolt. And there's a consensus among the Han, the preponderant ethnic group in China, that they want to maintain the empire. So they don't care how many Tibetans emulate themselves, right? That's no longer going on now, because the mortar has descended into Tibet. And they don't care how many Mongols complain about lost lands. The Han want to keep it. Also, for the generation that survived the Cultural Revolution, which would be Xi Jinping, he's precisely that age group, they do not ever want to go back to the chaos, the luang of the Cultural Revolution. It was horrendous.

• 51:12Sarah Paine?

  So expect them to prioritize stability over liberty. And this brings a third problem. If democracy and communism don't mix, and democracy and empire don't mix, okay, in an internet... Cell phone age and people are much more interconnected. How does a government maintain legitimacy to rule? Because elections are an incredibly powerful way to give authority to a government. And this is where nationalism comes in. And the Chinese Communist Party, and the Russians likewise, are trying to use jingoistic nationalism to stoke up popular loyalties and also to deflect people from domestic problems

• 51:55Sarah Paine?

  to go, "Oh, look at the hated outsiders," right? They aren't the only country to do this sort of thing, is you blame outsiders, it's all the immigrants' fault or whatever. And the problem with all of this, when the Chinese did it, is in 1980, right after the Tiananmen massacre, the Chinese Communist Party decided to rewrite all the textbooks. So they're no longer going to focus on class enemies, but they're going to be focused, to use jingoistic nationalism, they're going to focus on evil Japanese, evil Americans, and focus things that way. Well, the problem with nationalism is it's a very heady drink. If you imbibe too much, it clouds the judgment.

• 52:36Sarah Paine?

  Moreover, it repels minority people within China's empire, who are not interested in Han nationalism. It frightens neighbors to coordinate with each other and think, find big powers to counterbalance this mess. And it also impedes the de-escalation of unforeseen international dust-ups or crises. So with Putin's latest adventures, one would assume that the Chinese have some real thoughts about what's going on now. And in Putin's case, he has thrown away the Soviet addendum to the rules for continental empire. What was that one? No hot wars. If you think about Soviet rulers, they were all veterans of World War II through Leonid

• 53:21Sarah Paine?

  Brezhnev. And they understood that war is easy to get into, hard to get out of, very unpredictable. So it's for them was proxy wars. And they loved it when the United States got into hot wars. What is not to like about the Korean War and the Vietnam War, where the United States just tied down and Americans tearing each other's eyes out about these things? Great, great, great. Russians stayed out of it, until after Brezhnev's stroke, which that's when they make the big boo-boo in Afghanistan. And they go into Afghanistan. And then all of a sudden, we have loads of fun giving Stinger missiles to the other sides, inflicting costs on the Russians. And the person who wanted to get into Afghanistan is Yuri Andropov, who is not a veteran. The uniformed military of Russia said, "Don't

• 54:06Sarah Paine?

  go into Afghanistan," while Andropov and friends ignored it, did their thing. If you look at Putin, he has risen to power on a diet of hot wars. He comes to power in the early phase of the Second Chechen War, where he levels the Chechen capital of Grozny and leaves most of the rest of Chechnya an environmental waste zone, but he sorts that one out. And then he gets quite popular for his war with Georgia in 2008, where he detaches South Ossetian Khazia from Georgia. Now he wants to build a naval basin of Khazia because he's having trouble with his base on Crimea. And then, when he eliminates term limits for himself

• 54:47Sarah Paine?

  in 2012, which isn't very popular in Russia, he solves that by going into Ukraine in 2014 and walks off with about 7% of Ukrainian territory at very little cost. And Russians think that's great. So, if you look at these little stepping stones, this is the way continentalists look at it, you've got all these little places lined up. You want to color it in, and that's where Ukraine comes in, in 2022. So Putin wants to reverse all these territorial losses. He wants the green things and the purple things. I don't know, if he wants to do the Napoleonic Wars, I suppose, go all the way to Paris, who knows? And here's how he looks at NATO, or doesn't look at it. NATO, you can look at when people join, there are two

• 55:32Sarah Paine?

  great, big periods of accession to NATO. One is in the early Cold War, when all the smaller countries of Europe, which is everybody, right? We're all smaller than Russia. But the Europeans join to protect themselves from Soviet imperialism. And then at the end of the Cold War, when these Soviet satellites can finally slip the leash, I've given you all the reasons why, they stampede into NATO. It is not NATO tricking them to join, they're stampeding in for excellent reasons. They've been proven right. And then with Putin, when he does, works his magic the second time around in Ukraine in 2022, this is when the Finns and the Swedes decide neutrality is not going to cut it, we got to join NATO. But when Putin looks at this, he goes, "Oh, they're coming

• 56:15Sarah Paine?

  at us in arcs." Well, this is ludicrous. Russia has posed an existential threat to these places forever. No one today wants to invade Russia. Who'd want it? It's full of Russians. We want them to stay home, right? There's no one there who wants Russia. So the Russians like to gaslight everybody else, like you're the problem. It's been very effective. Lots of Americans will talk about NATO expansion and say, "Oh, this is why Putin went to Ukraine. It's you did NATO expansion." He's gaslighting everybody. Russians are the problem. And also, it is their totally dysfunctional domestic system that offers everybody else

• 57:00Sarah Paine?

  nothing but problems, instead of focusing on that and fixing it so they can be a productive member of the rest of the world. They're not doing that. They're just invading other people. So, back to the real problem. What are the prospects of a bromance with these two? Barring World War III, which would be the great powers go at it. If the great powers go at it, you might well superglue these two. And then if that happens, whatever side is losing might well use a nuclear weapon. And then we're going to have toxic plumes everywhere. So, we had better get our diplomacy right, because there are really serious consequences

• 57:43Sarah Paine?

  for getting it wrong in this particular era, where at the beginning of a second Cold War, with a leadership that has not been chastened by surviving World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II, which are the grownups who did a very effective job dealing with the early First Cold War. We haven't got those people anymore. So if you look at primary adversaries, primary theaters, you don't want them to align for your enemies because if they do, it'll be, they'll coordinate. Currently, Vlad the Bad has a Ukraine fixation. Xi Jinping has got a Taiwan fixation, opposite ends of Eurasia. Xi Jinping is also causing India problems and doing South China Sea Island building.

• 58:26Sarah Paine?

  But they're, they're on opposite ends of their two empires. So far, so far, nothing aligns with these two. And even in a world war, it's their primary theaters probably would not align the same way that the Axis' primary theaters did not align. And they might well disperse their resources in different directions. But the problem was, we have a lot of people with nuclear weapons now. You really don't want to do the hot war. So if the West and others manage things correctly, I've given you a huge historical legacy of fraught relations. Play your cards appropriately and these two will take care of each other.

• 59:09Sarah Paine?

  And the rest of us can, if we do it right, don't launch trade wars on each other, but rather try to maximize our prosperity so that we get stronger and stronger while they're busy in these wealth destroying wars. And Putin is just blowing through all of his assets in Ukraine to no purpose. That, that's how we fought and won the last Cold War. Putin, he's trying to do empire in the age of nationalism. Well, it's a non-starter. And he's dumping all of his ordinance on Ukraine, leaving Siberia wide open. And Xi Jinping has moved right in, even before the Ukraine war. That's this Belt Road Initiative is peeling away the former Russian sphere of influence in Central Asia.

• 59:54Sarah Paine?

  Putin is doing this hot war gambit when Russia's weak and China is strong, making it particularly damaging. And you go, well, why would it matter? Well, Russia has precisely, Siberia has precisely the resources that China now needs and covets and wants to have them contiguous, so other people can't mess with them. And in particularly, they want water, because they've blown through their water table in north China. Lake Baikal has over 20% of the world's surface freshwater. So if you want a quick fix, it's the best one. And China is known for big water projects. They've been damming the Mekong and the Yangtze. They've done massive water projects.

• 1:00:36Sarah Paine?

  So that may be in Russia's future, who knows? And Xi Jinping now holds all of the cards. China has nine times the population, nine times the GMP of Russia, and their per capita GMPs are converging. Not good news for Putin. So I think the question isn't whether this bromance is going to last forever, but rather when it's going to end. When is Xi Jinping going to decide he's got the right amount of leverage to get whatever it is he wants? And I think what's going on now illustrates the perils of getting your primary adversary wrong.

• 1:01:15Sarah Paine?

  Nicholas II fought a recreational war against Japan, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, 1905. He is pouring resources into, really, an irrelevant theater in those days. Instead of taking those resources and putting it into a railway system that European Russia desperately needed to face off Germany, which it does within the decade and loses, he is overthrown in part because of bread riots in St. Petersburg, because no foreign aid can get in, because he has inadequate railway system. They'll be built later, and it'll be good for Len Lee's. So he and his family wind up shot in a Siberian basement. It takes a decade to play out.

• 1:01:56Sarah Paine?

  So I don't know how it's going to go for Vladimir Putin on all of this. If we play our cards right, maybe he'll go in as lonesome, we have to wait a long time. On the other hand, if we get into a hot war, nuclear war...

• 1:02:14Sarah Paine?

  Or, and in the meantime, if the United States kills off its alliance system, which is its great, one of its greatest strengths by doing a gratuitous trade war on our allies, and then we have a dust-up with China, well, let's think about this. Japan tried this go-it-alone, my-way-or-the-highway strategy with China back in World War II, right, when China was a failed state, and it wrecked Japan. China now has a population that's a multiple of ours, an industrial base that's a multiple of ours. Why on earth would you ever want to take on them alone?

• 1:02:52Sarah Paine?

  So, I'm going to quote Pericles, who was the leader of Athens at its height, when it was building all these ancient ruins that weren't ruins when they were being built, right? They're gone. And he was, he, this warning came on the eve of the succession of Athenian blunders, and ancient Athens never recovered. "I am more afraid of our own blunders than of the enemy's devices." Our leaders truly need to ponder this before they wreck all of us, themselves included. So, thank you for your attention. That's what I have to say about Sinosoviet things.

• 1:03:35Dwarkesh Patel?

  Public benchmarks can be useful, but they don't always measure what you think they do. Take AMI or HMMT, which both contain extremely challenging, competition-level math problems. Now, LabelBox researchers found that some of the larger models were brute-forcing their answers through repeated trial and error, and they were sidestepping the very kind of mathematical reasoning that these benchmarks were designed to test in the first place. And on top of this, some of the questions had actually leaked into the model's training data. So, when LabelBox researchers swapped in fresh, equally challenging problems, the scores plummeted, and in many cases by more than 40%. So, when a LabelBox customer wanted to improve their model's math capabilities, LabelBox brought in a team of previous Math

• 1:04:15Dwarkesh Patel?

  Olympiad winners to develop brand-new AMI and HMMT-style problems that the models couldn't have possibly memorized, along with clever Variations that made brute force approaches computationally infeasible for the model. Labelbox also mapped out the model's strengths and weaknesses. For example, was it better at domains like combinatorics or algebra? And weighted the final fine tuned data towards the areas that needed the most work. There's no shortcut here. Labelbox just scrutinized benchmarks at the single data row level to ensure that their customers' models were learning and improving as effectively as possible. You can learn more at labelbox.com/twarkesh.

• 1:04:55Dwarkesh Patel?

  Okay, first question. I want to understand the role of ideology in the Sino-Soviet split. So these are the two major communist countries in the world. They have this big ideological role changing mission. We're going to spread communism around the world. And that isn't enough to prevent some war over, in the case of 1969, literally just islands in the middle of a river, right? There's like nothing super consequential at stake here. So why didn't the fact that they were both these communist countries do more to cement the relationship?

• 1:05:24Sarah Paine?

  Well, I gave you all these bad things that Russia had done to China, which are, they're not small things. And then isn't the problem with communism is that the economics of it don't actually work? And that fundamentally, these two countries are continental powers. They're continental empires. And sure, they change out ideologies. The ideology of the Tsar changes out to communism. And China's changing out Confucianism for communism. But the principle that each one should be king of the roost, that hasn't changed.

• 1:06:04Sarah Paine?

  And that would be a mutually exclusive proposition of who's going to run Asia and then Eurasia, right? Because they have a shared address, right? This long border. And also communism, you're supposed to have a whole, it's supposed to take over the whole world, right? And we're supposed to have a classless society, right? And that's why we don't even worry about governments and things because they're eventually going to melt away? Well, that's all nonsense. And as things go on further and further, you have dictators more and more entrenched. And they're using communism, which is another piece where it's just amazing about the big lie. I don't know whether Stalin said something,

• 1:06:49Sarah Paine?

  if the lie is big enough, people will believe you, that it's just so out there, it's so preposterous, they go with it, which is this notion that the Soviet Union is, that it's the West, or these imperial powers, right? And we buy this, that they're not the ones. But if you look at it, I've given you the data. And then this other one in our own time, this lie about, oh, it's the West, it's NATO expansion, this explains Putin. I've given you the data. It's nonsense. It's now why the Russians feel obliged to take other people's territory. Part of it is this feeling good while other people squirm. There's that aspect. And they're not the only people who do those sorts of things.

• 1:07:31Sarah Paine?

  But it's also from this being on the plains of Eurasia over history, people have invaded you. And so you have an established paradigm of how you deal with other people that is deep seated over thousands of years. So I can't totally answer the question because there are a lot of Russians and a lot of Chinese whose decisions together aggregate to what they do.

• 1:07:53Dwarkesh Patel?

  Hmm. So I want to understand, say Stalin's decisions in particular, in the case of telling the communists during the Chinese Civil War, that you can go below the Yangtze River so that he can split up the Chinese, and so the communists and the nationalists in China and leave China weak. So we know from all the actions in Stalin's life that he was a devoted communist, right? He does collectivization and almost destroys his regime because he's a devoted communist. At the same time, and so communism says that there has to be this worldwide revolution at some point. If there is a worldwide revolution, there will be other powerful communist countries. So that's implied in the nature of what a worldwide communist revolution is. But at the same time, he's You know, he doesn't seem communist enough to want China to become fully communist.

• 1:08:39Dwarkesh Patel?

  He like cares more about real geopolitik. So yeah, tell me about how.

• 1:08:44Sarah Paine?

  His version of communism is Russians invented it, or actually they didn't, Marx invented it. But they're the guys who think, well, we operationalize it, so we should run it forever. So of course, it's going to be Russia is going to be the big communist country. So and a bunch of Chinese upstarts from their point of view are claiming, no, no, no, it's, we're going to run the show.

• 1:09:05Dwarkesh Patel?

  But did Stalin, so as a communist, he thought, okay, there's going to be at some point, the whole world is going to be communist. And he thought that he personally would be managing the whole world?

• 1:09:16Sarah Paine?

  Uh, unclear, because in his lifetime, right? Because it's a long horizon. In his lifetime, he's about initially communism in one country, right? And then communism on your borders, which is what he's working on. As for the rest of the world, it takes Brezhnev to start going all deep into Africa. Stalin wasn't interested in, say, India, because he thought they're a bunch of lackeys of the British, right? How do they let themselves be colonized by the British? There's something wrong with them. So you have to also think about where history is at a given moment. So he dies in 53. It's not that long after World War Two of how it's all going to turn out.

• 1:10:00Sarah Paine?

  And things, his relationship with China, as far as he's concerned, is going swimmingly when he's in power. Mao goes there and basically kowtows in Moscow and does what Stalin wants him to do. That's Stalin's experience until he, I don't know, chokes on his cherry, or whatever happened to him that morning?

• 1:10:18Dwarkesh Patel?

  If Stalin hadn't died, do you think Sino-Soviet split was still inevitable? Because, yes, there wouldn't have been Khrushchev's secret speech. Obviously Stalin wouldn't have condemned the cult of personality, but the grievances, you mentioned, would still exist.

• 1:10:34Sarah Paine?

  I think grievances would still exist. I think Stalin's death, dictator's death profoundly weaken their systems because they've got no good succession. So it means you're guaranteed a catfight royale going on. And so, I mean, that's what one waits for, for when Putin, eventually the man will die one way or another. And there will be a catfight royale for what happens to him. So I don't know. Stalin was a pretty old enough guy when he died and Russians in those days had a pretty lousy diet. And I can't remember if he smoked, his generation mostly did. So I don't know the, how the future would have run with good old Uncle Joe there for longer. I can't, the Korean War would have still gone on longer.

• 1:11:19Sarah Paine?

  It's really his death why that war ends.

• 1:11:23Sarah Paine?

  So then with the Korean War goes on and on and on, I don't know what the implications are for us or for Mao.

• 1:11:30Dwarkesh Patel?

  Hmm. This, I think, is a really interesting thing to consider from this lecture that,

• 1:11:38Dwarkesh Patel?

  you know, in retrospect, maybe one of the most important things, if not the most important thing that happened in the 20th century, is the Chinese Civil War. At the time, you know, you just, you wouldn't think of this as a, especially World War II has just happened. You wouldn't think of this as, if you were living in 1948 or 1949, you wouldn't think of this as a main thing happening in the world. But given that we know in retrospect, this is a really big country with a huge population, we should be paying a lot of attention to its internal political development. And I wonder if we should apply the same logic today where there's other countries with huge populations where we don't think a lot about what's happening, India or Nigeria. I mean, I really couldn't tell you the first thing about Nigeria, even though I know that's a big country with a huge population.

• 1:12:15Sarah Paine?

  Let's not try, because I don't know anything about it either.

• 1:12:19Sarah Paine?

  But on the China, the Chinese Civil War, there was an understanding that it was a really big deal. And that's why Roosevelt and the British are just thinking he's laughable. He keeps trying to treat China like a great power and the British are going, they're not a great power, Franklin, not remotely, but he wants to bring them into the Cairo Conference or wherever the one he brings them in. And he also wants to include them as the big, he wants them to be a veto member, wielding member of the United Nations, which by China's military status, there's just no way that, but Roosevelt is looking, there's no Japan out there.

• 1:13:02Sarah Paine?

  We want to have something in Asia to counterbalance. But then when you get to the Chinese Civil War, Americans who have fought some big wars, they're looking at it going, it is not feasible for us to alter this outcome. And therefore, the thinking was, I think it was the Eisenhower archives, anyway, that.

• 1:13:24Sarah Paine?

  That if you, they live together long enough, they would go at each other eventually.

• 1:13:30Dwarkesh Patel?

  Hmm. Okay. I want to zoom in on one particular episode during this period that I think is fascinating. So in 1936, the communists in China kidnapped Chen Kai-shek, who is the leader of the nationalists. And they're about to kill him and Stalin radios in over the common term and he says, no, you can't kill Chen Kai-shek. Even though he's your enemy, he's been massacring you. You ought to let him go. And as exchange, Chen Kai-shek has a promise to create a united front against the Japanese. Now, there's 30,000 communist guerrillas when they're fighting the Japanese at this period. And there's 1.5 to 2 million nationalist troops. So the communists get to claim the prestige of fighting the Japanese with a fraction of the effort.

• 1:14:12Dwarkesh Patel?

  And this just seems like a brilliant move in Stalin's part in retrospect, because if they had killed Chen Kai-shek, the nationalist forces might have dissolved.

• 1:14:19Sarah Paine?

  Yeah.

• 1:14:20Dwarkesh Patel?

  There would be a puppet government installed by Japan. It would be a terrible thing for Stalin. It just seems like Stalin makes a lot of right calls.

• 1:14:26Sarah Paine?

  Yeah.

• 1:14:26Dwarkesh Patel?

  In the theater in Asia at this time. And what is he understanding big picture that lets him?

• 1:14:30Sarah Paine?

  Oh, hold on. There are dictators all over the world who stay in power for a long time. Do not dismiss their ability to stay in power. They're surfing quite a wave wherever they live, right? Of people who butcher each other with great regularity. I would suspect the most, and this is suspect, because how would I have the evidence? That many of these long-term dictators have EQs that are off the charts, right? They look and when you come in the room, they just gut feeling know whether they're going to cap you or not. And if they get a few extra people, so what? Right? Just so they get rid of all the people who are going to cause them problems.

• 1:15:09Sarah Paine?

  And incredible abilities. Also, what Stalin does, and I think Saddam Hussein imitated it, but I could be wrong about that one, is you have multiple security agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. And so no one quite knows who's running the show and who's in power. But they're all funneling information to Stalin, so he has better information than anybody else. So you can use one one day, another another day, which explains how you can, all the heads of whatever, it's the equivalent of the KGB, it comes and goes. Most of the early heads of that wind up getting shot by their successors. You'd think they'd notice a pattern, but so they're.

• 1:15:51Sarah Paine?

  Very good at staying in power. They're really good at managing that problem. It does not bring prosperity. That comes from the world of maritime trade, of going, falling by international law. Instead of capping your trade partner, you're not going to get a second trade deal if you do that.

• 1:16:12Sarah Paine?

  It's just so much more wealth creating, this alternate universe. But that's not where these continentalists are.

• 1:16:19Dwarkesh Patel?

  I feel like there's still something a little under explained about.

• 1:16:22Sarah Paine?

  Probably. Lots of things are under.

• 1:16:24Dwarkesh Patel?

  But in the sense, look, Hitler's another dictator. And he does, forget about like having these like moves where he decides who exactly, don't kill this kidnapped person because it'll be a bad idea in the long run. In the opposite, he's like declaring war against America, but even when he doesn't have to, right? He's just making these crazy moves. Stalin is like a special thing to explain. But how does like communism make you, I feel like it's not just communism. It's like something else that's making him a deft geopolitical actor.

• 1:16:50Sarah Paine?

  But you can do this in retrospect and go crazy move. Cause no one realized that the US productive base could do what it did. Americans didn't even know, right? So you tell me right now how the future is going to turn out.

• 1:17:05Sarah Paine?

  This is where, if you flip it, when you look at history, you think it had to turn out that way. Cause you can reverse engineer something, at least a plausible story of why you wind up where you did. And it may not even be the right story, but it yields the correct answer. So you think you've got it. But if you look at the future, how's this thing going to end with Xi Jinping and Putin? We don't know. And then afterwards you'll go, oh, well, something is profoundly stupid based on subsequent events. But we don't know now, right? And it's because, oh, well, there's a Russian proverb, which is,

• 1:17:42Sarah Paine?

  which is someone, someone else's mind, darkness. Is that you ultimately don't know what other people are thinking. You make your guesses, but then they do things.

• 1:17:53Dwarkesh Patel?

  When you showed the maps of China in 1850, Russia also in 1850, especially 1900. Russia and China are still big countries today. But if you just look at Qing Dynasty China, it's overwhelmingly big. Same with Sauris Russia before the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

• 1:18:12Sarah Paine?

  So Union.

• 1:18:13Dwarkesh Patel?

  It makes you think that it's, at various points through history, at most points through history, China was technologically dominant over the West. Except during this one crucial period in this 18th and 19th century with the Industrial Revolution in high gear.

• 1:18:27Sarah Paine?

  Which changes the whole world.

• 1:18:29Dwarkesh Patel?

  So just reinforces the idea that how important it is to be at the technological frontier, especially at historically cruxy times. And of course, we're in San Francisco. We, many of us here believe that this is especially

• 1:18:40Sarah Paine?

  Yeah.

• 1:18:41Dwarkesh Patel?

  cruxy time in sort of the development of technology.

• 1:18:44Sarah Paine?

  Yeah, maybe we shouldn't, we should continue investing it instead of canceling all the science research projects. And what will be the long-term effects of doing this, right? You're thinking of America's great strengths, its alliance system. Our great strength also used to be being at the head of innovation. So we're going to eliminate those things and think it's going to go well for us?

• 1:19:08Dwarkesh Patel?

  Okay, I want to ask about your, I don't know if you'd call it a prediction, but your hypothesis that at some point China and Russia will finish each other off or have some sort of conflict, which will be bad for both of them.

• 1:19:21Sarah Paine?

  They won't finish each other off, they're too big to be finished off. Unless we do a nuclear war, then we might finish all of ourselves off.

• 1:19:26Dwarkesh Patel?

  Yes, but the idea that there will be some sort of conflict between these two countries. And I agree with the idea that, look, China has a lot of people and a lot of wealth. Russia has a lot of water and it has a lot of resources. So these are sort of complementary resources. You know, they both have things that the other party has. And so then the question is, will they attain these things through war or through trade? And it just seems very improbable to me that, you know, China's got a lot of money. It can just pay for Russian oil, it can just pay for water. Why would it invade a nuclear armed nation?

• 1:20:00Sarah Paine?

  Oh, I never said it would do that. It's a question of if Putin feels that his back is up against the wall. It's what price, like, we don't really know the terms of their trade on what are the real energy prices that China's paying for all of this? I don't know, maybe some people do know, but I suspect that whatever the terms of trade are going to be, the Chinese are going to get a really good deal. And then if Putin is really, in fact, if you look at what happened to Gorbachev at the very end of the Cold War. So, he, his internal situation, it's not, he's not going to war with anyone, but his

• 1:20:41Sarah Paine?

  internal situation is devolving so rapidly because their economy collapses. He's already got no lousy oil prices. But in addition, he is so upset, the centralized planning system, so that revenues are just collapsing around him. And he's about to be thrown out of power. And so, he is desperate for the kind of loans that the Germans in particular are willing to give him in order to get not only Germany reunited, but West Germany stays in NATO. Oh, and the next thing is East Germany is going to be in NATO too, and then NATO can have whoever.

• 1:21:23Sarah Paine?

  Those things are trades he never would have made, ever. But he's so desperate. So in that case, the West doesn't, likes to pay people. So instead of paying him a low price, the West is paying him a high price to back off. In China, I suspect it'll be the opposite. It'll be, is that they pay him less and less for whatever it is he wants. If he really corners himself, continues to corner himself in Ukraine, that these terms of trade will get more and more in China's favor.

• 1:21:50Dwarkesh Patel?

  Hmm. I guess, does that look like the bromance ending, right? So, North Korea is an increasingly, or has been for decades, in a very desperate position, where...

• 1:21:59Sarah Paine?

  That's quite a bromance.

• 1:22:01Dwarkesh Patel?

  Well, but like...

• 1:22:02Sarah Paine?

  If that's how you wind up.

• 1:22:03Dwarkesh Patel?

  You know, there, there's no risk of North Korea and China going to, I mean, North Korea relies heavily on China.

• 1:22:10Sarah Paine?

  Yeah.

• 1:22:10Dwarkesh Patel?

  It's not, it's not draining China in any way.

• 1:22:13Sarah Paine?

  Oh, it's the other way around. That's what Russia's future may be. And apparently, certain Russians, when Putin had invaded the big way in Ukraine, said, "Oh, oh my God, that's our future. It's North Korea. That's where we're headed."

• 1:22:26Dwarkesh Patel?

  Hmm.

• 1:22:27Sarah Paine?

  Yeah. That could well be their future. It'll just keep going, as they pour out wealth, and the Chinese will try to get a very good terms of trade for resources and beniggardly, meaning to give very few things back.

• 1:22:42Dwarkesh Patel?

  Mm-hmm. In 1931, when Japan attacks Manchuria, Japan commandeers the Chinese Eastern Railway, which the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905 said that it was supposed to be under Russia's purview. And people in the Politburo are telling Stalin, "Look, we gotta be aggressive against this." And Stalin says, "Look, I don't want to raise tensions against another great power. Let's just let this slide. Let's keep tensions low." And this is actually quite similar to what happens with splitting up Poland in 1939 and then Barbarossa, where in both theaters, he makes this calculation that I'm going to let certain things slide so that I don't have to face off against this great powers on my border. I don't want to go to war with them.

• 1:23:25Sarah Paine?

  Right.

• 1:23:25Dwarkesh Patel?

  In the case of Japan, it works because Japan decides to attack China and not Russia. In the case of, obviously, Germany, it doesn't work.

• 1:23:31Sarah Paine?

  Oh, yeah, yeah. In Germany, he's trying to run the same script on.

• 1:23:34Dwarkesh Patel?

  Right.

• 1:23:35Sarah Paine?

  And he thinks that this is gonna work for him. But that's what the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is about. And not remotely, he needed to read Mein Kampf to understand. No, you're a menu item for Hitler. He is eventually gonna come around. And also, I think it's in our own day where we don't really want to absorb the bad news. Like, I could be wrong, but I believe that Putin wants not only all of Ukraine, which he says he wants, but also he wants the Baltic States and he wants to keep on going. And so this is profoundly bad news.

• 1:24:17Sarah Paine?

  Because if that's the case, then it means, for Europeans at least, they're gonna have to be diverting all kinds of resources to this problem, which is something they don't want to do, right? Because like us, they're indebted too, and there are other things they would prefer to spend their money on. And we don't like the bad news that actually this is where we're at, and so you gotta make nasty trade-offs. So Stalin tries to work the same magic. Stalin thinks it's going to work for him and he doesn't get it. He becomes the menu item for Hitler and it just about wrecks him. But it works beautifully against China.

• 1:24:56Dwarkesh Patel?

  So it's just interesting to see like, oh, it kind of makes sense why he thought it would work because otherwise, his failure to anticipate Operation Barbaro. So, you know, when he's getting information that the Germans are lining up millions of men along this huge border, he's like, this is British disinformation. And he uses the exact same logic when Japan is invading Manchuria, that like, the idea that we had to fight Japan is British information, disinformation, sorry. So even though obviously it was a mistake, it helps us to understand why he thought this way.

• 1:25:24Sarah Paine?

  Well, I think there's another concept that's useful is cooperative adversary. And I've introduced this before. It doesn't mean the adversary wants to cooperate with you, but they just don't play their cards particularly well. So we're talking about China that has had all of those rebellions I told you about and civil wars and regional wars. It doesn't have these strong government institutions. So it is much easier to script write a place like that, to have them do things that are antithetical to their interests. So you've got a cooperative adversary. Chinese aren't trying to cooperate, but from a Russian point of view, they might be a cooperative adversary versus Hitler, whereas Germany has all kinds of institutions and all kinds

• 1:26:09Sarah Paine?

  of well-educated people. And so that hoodwinking Hitler is going to be much more difficult than whoever he's dealing with in China in this period.

• 1:26:18Dwarkesh Patel?

  An interesting connection to make between World War II and this Russo-Chinese relationship is that the way that we used Russia as basically this reservoir of military men that we can just like ship armaments to and they can do the dying for us is similar to how Russia uses China in the war against Japan, is that, well, they're not actually during that war shipping that much to China, but.

• 1:26:49Sarah Paine?

  No, they're not giving the thing. Yeah, Korean War, yes.

• 1:26:52Dwarkesh Patel?

  So there's this, interestingly, Russia is doing to them the kind of alliance that we had with Russia during World War II.

• 1:26:58Sarah Paine?

  Well, think about today. It's like the Korean War in reverse because China's dribbling out aid to Russia. Russia's actually getting wrecked by Ukraine, right? The death rate is. Russia's got, what is it, three times the population or something of Ukraine? But it's the death rate that it's suffering is really high. And these are only children. This is no longer the 10 children, six children peasant families in Russia. And it's like, look at it from Xi Jinping, "Oh, the longer this goes on, the better. Just let Putin keep on working his magic. And I get to sell him stuff. I'll get him to lower the prices of resources because the man's desperate.

• 1:27:41Sarah Paine?

  And Putin will find himself under a Chinese yoke that he does not like. And then at some point, the Russians will reassess. And I don't think they'll like that. The Russians fancy themselves being Europeans and have a whole, I believe, racist package that goes with the Chinese so that they won't like that whole situation. I don't know how long it takes them to do whatever they're going to do. So a lot of things in foreign policy, you're not going to solve it. They're huge countries. There's no way you're going to solve it. But you need to figure out how to manage it. So to have a blast shield so that whatever fallout comes from their toxic, whatever

• 1:28:25Sarah Paine?

  they're doing, it minimizes how it hits your friends and partners. And this is why you should be focusing on maximizing the economic growth of your friends and partners, because that is the only effective way to deal with them. If you go it alone, I mean, who deals with a bully alone? Always gang up on them, right? I mean, really? Why would you ever want to go alone with a bully? You'd want to go in with lots of friends. And this is what the World War II generation, so the Marshall Plan, you look at it, you could never get something through that like Congress now, right? And yet, it's passed overwhelmingly in Congress because people get it, that you have to spend

• 1:29:08Sarah Paine?

  real money and then the European economies recover. How are they going to do it? Buying our stuff. It's a tremendous win-win. So in strategy, you want to figure out win-win things instead of these zero-sum things where, "Oh, I invite you over. I humiliate you. I feel good." And then you're mad forever. It's pointless.

• 1:29:31Dwarkesh Patel?

  Great note to close on. Oh, don't humiliate people, be kind to each other, yes. Well, it is a good callback because I've been asking you all these ninety questions and you've been very kind to not humiliate me, so.

• 1:29:46Dwarkesh Patel?

  Thank you all very much for coming. It is so fun to be able to do these things with a live audience and not trapped inside a dark studio room. We hope, I hope we see you guys again on Friday when we're doing the lecture on the proper way to do war termination and then next Tuesday, which is about why Russia lost the Cold War. See you on Friday. Thank you, Sarah. Hey, everybody. I hope you enjoyed that episode. If you did, the most helpful thing you can do is just share it with other people who you think might enjoy it. It's also helpful if you leave a rating or a comment on whatever platform you're listening on.

• 1:30:25Dwarkesh Patel?

  If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast, you can reach out at dwarkesh.com/adandise. Otherwise, I'll see you on the next one.