쉐도잉 연습: Both Russia and America only pursue power, not principle, argues Moosa Haraj - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기
로딩 중...
1
They both pursue what is best to maintain their regional hegemony and power, not to adhere to any moral standard.
2
Realpolitik is the command of the day, not morality.
3
The motion before the house tonight is, this house believes there is no moral difference between the American and Russian foreign policy.
4
To open the case for side proposition, I look to the librarian, Balliol College, Musa Haraj.
5
The librarian chair should be yielded to the CCC wherever you are.
6
Mr. President, esteemed guests and members of the House,
7
we gather here tonight to debate a provocative,
8
perhaps even scandalous proposition, one that shakes the very foundations of how we see global politics.
9
That this house believes there is no moral difference between the foreign policy of the United States and that of Russia.
10
Now I know that some of you, particularly those who have been raised in Hollywood movies where America is always the hero,
11
may find this claim outrageous.
12
After all, the United States champions democracy, freedom, and liberty.
13
While Russia, we are told is the villain the perennial antagonist in our modern cold war sequel
14
but let us strip away the rhetoric the chanting the flag waving
15
and examine what these two superpowers actually do rather than what they say because when we do a simple truth emerges
16
both are empires both have left destruction in their wake both do not have an ounce of morality
17
in their foreign policy
18
and let me be clear both only pursue power not principle
19
morality in their foreign policy that's about as believable as in russian opposition candidate making it to election day
20
or an arms dealer calling for world peace in short non-existent
21
they both pursue what is best to maintain their regional hegemony and power, not to adhere to any moral standard.
22
Realpolitik is the command of the day, not morality.
23
And therefore, there is no moral difference in their foreign policies because they do not have moral foreign policies.
24
But before I make my case, it is my pleasure to introduce the speakers who are going to make the case for side opposition.
25
Speaking first is our very own Treasurer, Sarah Rana.
26
Now let's talk about Sarah's meteoric rise to the position of Treasurer.
27
Sarah, much like in Russia, has proven that you don't always need an election to take power.
28
Rising to the top, not by a popular vote, but by simply waiting for a convenient vacancy.
29
If she really believes there's a moral difference between America and Russia, she might want to start by looking at her own route to office.
30
But in all seriousness, there is a dear friend of mine
31
and has been a pillar of strength for all of us this term.
32
Speaking second in opposition, is His Excellency Guillermo Lazo, the former president of Ecuador.
33
Mr. President, it is an honor to participate in this debate with you and we welcomed you to the union.
34
Though I believe you would fit in extremely well with the union because just like our own president,
35
you ran for first for president and decisively lost.
36
So both of you have a shared record of running for president and losing only to win at a later time.
37
Speaking third, we have Andrei Soldatov, a Russian investigative journalist.
38
Mr. President, I must say, Andrei's presence here tonight is nothing short of impressive.
39
After all, investigative journalism in Russia is an extreme sport.
40
One where the stakes are often exile, imprisonment, or the occasional mysterious cup of tea.
41
Andrei, you're living proof that one can criticize the Russian state and still be alive to tell the tale.
42
A feat almost as rare as an election in Moscow.
43
But it's an honor to have you.
44
We also have Ambassador Eric Ramanathan, who transitioned from being a top democratic fundraiser to a US ambassador to Sweden.
45
It's heartwarming to see that in American politics, the shortest path of diplomacy is through your wallet.
46
Mr. President, these are your speakers and they're most welcome.
47
Now, the US and Russia both operate under a very simple guiding principle, that might makes right.
48
They do not act based on some moral compass or some divine right to spread freedom or sovereignty.
49
No, what drives their foreign policies is power, influence, and self-interest.
50
Take the example of Ukraine.
51
Both superpowers claim to be acting in defense of sovereignty, of democracy, of security, yet for all their resources and influence,
52
neither of them have resolved the war.
53
Instead, they prolong it, they escalate it, and they ensure it's in continuation, all while cloaking their involvement in moral rhetoric.
54
Does Russia's bombardment of Mariupol differ in any fundamental moral way from the U.S flattening of Fallujah?
55
Does America's shock and awe campaign in Baghdad hold some unique ethical high ground over Russian missile strikes in Kyiv?
56
Can we, with straight faces, say that one country's proxy wars,
57
assassinations, and military occupations are noble where the other countries are evil?
58
The answer is simple.
59
Both are empires, and both pursue power, not principle.
60
Now let's compare their records side by side.
61
In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on a lie.
62
The false claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
63
The war killed hundreds of thousands of people, displaced millions, and left the country in ruins.
64
The US called it liberation.
65
The world called it illegal aggression.
66
Similarly, in 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretense of denunification and protecting Russian speakers.
67
The war again killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and left the country in ruins.
68
This time again, Russia called it liberation, but the world calls illegal aggression.
69
But members of the House, these are not anomalies.
70
They are patterns of imperial behavior in 2011 when the u.s led a nato intervention in Libya,
71
declaring that it was necessary to protect civilians and defend democracy against a brutal dictator, the world was told that this is a humanitarian mission,
72
that America and its allies are standing for human rights.
73
Let's be clear, the objective was regime change.
74
The US and NATO wanted Gaddafi removed because he was unpredictable, opposed Western influence in the region,
75
and controlled vast oil reserves that Western powers had strong interests in securing.
76
Once he was killed, the US and its allies lost their interest, they packed up, they left, and abandoned Libya to its face.
77
What followed was a total collapse, armed militia seized power, the country descended into civil war, and to this day, Today,
78
Libya remains fractured, unstable, and struggling.
79
The so-called humanitarian intervention achieved its real strategic goal, removing Gaddafi, but it left Libya in ruins.
80
Under similar moral pretenses, Russia launched a military intervention in Syria in 2015,
81
this time claiming it was necessary to fight terrorism and defense stability.
82
The world was told that Russia was stopping the spread of extremism, that it was preserving order in the Middle East.
83
But again, let's be honest, the real objective was to proper Bashar al-Assad,
84
Russia's loyal client dictator, and to secure Russia's only Mediterranean naval base in Tartus.
85
Once Russia ensured Assad's survival and strengthened its military foothold in the region, it scaled back its involvement, leaving Syria to a never-ending war.
86
and humanitarian crisis.
87
When Aleppo was left in ruins, civilians bore the brunt of brutal bombings and the very stability that Russia promised never came.
88
Just like in Libya, Russia stepped in,
89
achieved its real strategic interests under a moral pretense and then abandoned the country to disaster.
90
Two interventions, two superpowers claiming moral justification and two nations devastated and abandoned in their wake.
91
So members of the House, I ask you, what really is the moral difference between these two self-interested titans?
92
Some of you disturbed by the case I'm presenting might argue that America has a rules-based order, that America fights for human rights,
93
and that its foreign policy, though flawed, is at least rooted in good intentions.
94
I have three words for you.
95
Chile, Vietnam, Guatemala.
96
The idea of a benign American foreign policy for all its palm and self-indulgent mythology is a myth.
97
Inaccurate at best and deeply malign at worst.
98
American foreign policy only champions democracy when it suits their interests.
99
The US has toppled democratically elected governments across the world when those governments did not serve its interests.
100
In 1973, it backed a coup against Salvador Allende in Chile, leading to years of brutal dictatorship under Pinochet.
101
In Vietnam, it nepan villages in the name of stopping communism.
102
In Guatemala, it funded death squads.
103
The idea that the United States fights for democracy is a public relations campaign.
104
It's not a reality.
105
And Russia, well, it's the same.
106
It claims to protect its people and its sphere of influence.
107
But in reality, it's also supports dictators like Assad.
108
It suppresses oppression in Belarus and has turned Ukraine into a war zone.
109
What's the difference?
110
The only difference between the two is that America has better branding.
111
Both of them use economic warfare as a means for global domination.
112
The US uses sanctions as a weapon to crush nations economically.
113
Just ask Cuba, Venezuela or Iran.
114
Russia, meanwhile, leverages its energy resources to blackmail Europe and fund mercenary groups like the Wagner Group to extract wealth from Africa.
115
Both use economic tools not to uplift or to dominate.
116
The U.S imposed crushing economic sanctions on rogue states under the banner of human rights.
117
Yet very conveniently, when its own allies like Saudi Arabia engage in mass execution and war crimes like they do in Yemen,
118
it ignores them.
119
Russia condemns Western interventions.
120
yet when it suits with interests, props up authoritarian regime like Assad's Syria, all while framing his actions as protecting sovereignty.
121
Some will claim that America's system at least allows for accountability, that the presidents are scrutinized, that mistakes are corrected.
122
But tell me this, when was the last time an American president was tried for war crimes?
123
When was the last time a CIA officer faced justice for overthrowing a government?
124
The United States decries Russia's influence operations.
125
The US openly funds those opposition movements in countries like Venezuela and Iran.
126
It condemns Russian military interventions.
127
Yet months ago, it was dropping thousands of bombs on Yemen.
128
If you believe there is a fundamental moral difference, you are not looking at the world as it is you
129
are looking at the world as they market it to you
130
indeed one of the greatest tricks the empire has ever pulled is convincing the world
131
that their wars that their interventions
132
that their economic coercion are all for a higher cause
133
that they act not out of self-interest but they're acting out of duty virtue
134
and moral responsibility and yet if we follow the pattern we see the same moral script played over and over again,
135
just merely with different accents.
136
The moral justification is a disguise, a narrative tool, a political weapon.
137
They don't act for morality.
138
They act for power.
139
And morality is simply the wrapping paper they use to sell their wars.
140
And you know the most tragic part?
141
The world keeps falling for it.
142
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, let us not be fooled by flags, anthems, and carefully curated moral narratives.
143
When we strip away the propaganda, when we strip away the ideological spin and the selective outrage, the reality becomes clear.
144
Both America and Russia act on power, not on principle.
145
They both have left nations in ruins.
146
They both have justified unjustifiable wars.
147
They both have wield morality as a weapon while ignoring its constraints.
148
And that, honourable members, is why there is no moral difference between the foreign policy of the United States
149
and that of Russia.
150
One is simply better at marketing its imperialism, slicker in its delivery, but the underlying mechanisms remain the same.
151
I urge all of you to side with the truth over illusion and vote for side proposition.
152
Thank you very much.
이 레슨에 대해
"Both Russia and America only pursue power, not principle, argues Moosa Haraj"으로 쉐도잉 기법을 사용해 영어를 연습합니다.
매일 15~30분 꾸준히 연습하면 IELTS 스피킹에 대한 자신감이 길러집니다.
쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법
쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.