It's just not a realistic depiction. There is no real evidence that we have moved away from the brutalist paradigm. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. De

It's just not a realistic depiction. There is no real evidence that we have moved away from the brutalist paradigm. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Despite what you may have been told, those are strategic conflicts. Russia annexing Crimea was also strategic. It seems like Russia is looking at this as just trying to "stay in the game". But he is right about a few things. The situation is different today with communication technology. And it does seem like a pivotal moment. But it's just not the case that we have been at peace. There has just been a bit of a lull. I would like to believe that with the internet, useful translation software, etc., some type of peaceful global integration could be possible. But it does not look like countries or individuals are doing what is necessary for that. They continue to fail to recognize opposing world views or directly engage with them. They continue to view their own nations activities through rose tinted glasses and make little effort to recognize the true motivations or needs of other countries. The people getting published are clueless and partisan. Democracy is just a word meaning "our team". There is no real recognition of what it is or isn't, and no serious attempt to integrate other viewpoints. The western approach may be a step forward, but is far from ideal, and has many severe problems. Almost as severe as those in the east. More in some ways. The "peace" has been through domination. This is just the current empire letting their foot off the neck of one of the stronger rivals.