For those of us who aren't going to watch a video of unknown length to find out what your point is, would you provide a summary?
> The third era that influenced Russian thought in a great manner is Mongol Russia. In the 1240s, the Mongols conquered Russia. They held Russia for 150 years. That time was cruel. There are a lot of words in Russian, related to torture, taxation and corruption, that come from the Mongol language. Dominance under personal authority was rooted in the administrative culture from the Mongols. That is, there is only one khan that leads. It is he who leads, no one else. Others are passive followers. That one guy leads and takes responsibility and the initiative. When the belief of divine legitimacy to lead is attached to this, the leader will appear as fairly tough in their world view.
> The corruption and cruelty also comes from the Mongol era. During the Mongol rule the only ways to survive were lying, corruption and violence. This still lives very deep in Russia’s strategic culture. When Mongol rule ended, the Mongols did not just pack their bags and disappear from Russia. Instead they mixed with the locals. So the traditions also stayed with the people. In particular, to the leading caste. The Mongols who had previously ruled the country merged into the ruling layers, which is still visible today.
One thing to note about Russia is it is not defensible in standard sense of it's hard to cross this river or mountain. This lead to Russia making distance it's defense. You go and capture a bunch of different peoples with no relations to each other and use them as a meat shield if anyone attacks. Meanwhile you want for the harsh winter to wear them out. But this also comes as a cost, you cannot allow any of these outlying territories to gain too much power or they could become a threat to Moscow, hence you tend to see a massive amount of Russia under developed and depopulated.
The problem is, assumed “corruption and cruelty” could only be mostly local. Mongols came, instituted all fashions of levies, grant themselves the authority to accept local rulers, and went back. They didn't help to defend their vassals from foreign armies, but they chose their side in inter-principality campaigns, ensuring that the winner is under their control.
Funnily enough, this critical view matches the view of nationalistic thinkers of old who firmly placed the stereotype of “200 years of Mongol yoke” and widespread desolation into the education curriculum. There are doubts that is was that bad, especially for the elites that served Mongols well (and therefore made their regions actual parts of Mongol empire, which is an unthinkable perspective to nationalists describing them as “independent” and spiritually “unconquered”) However, in the era of the tsars it was used to explain how Russia is a “real” European country with unfortunate fate, and why its tsars are equal peers to European kings, and now it is used to explain how it totally isn't. The catch-all stereotype of despotic Oriental rule is quite clear here.