[China Lecture Series] 32강 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 (대담)

존 미어샤이머 시카고대 교수 특별강연
[China Lecture Series] 32강 : 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 (대담)
“한국은 지정학적으로 세계에서 가장 불리한 위치에 있다”
“추악하고 위험한 것이 국제정치의 본질이다”
공격적 현실주의(offensive neorealism)를 주창한 현실주의 국제정치학의 대가 존 미어샤이어 John J. Mearsheimer.
존 미어샤이머 교수의 강연에 이어 진행된 대담에는 정재호 서울대 교수, 이근욱 서강대 교수가 함께 했다.
정재호 교수는 중국은 놀라운 속도로 성장하고 있지만 아직 미국을 따라잡았다고 말하기엔 이르다면서, '미국-중국 간의 충돌이 발생한다면 언제, 어떤 모습으로 나타날 것인가?'를 질문했다.
한국이 TPP에는 가입하지 않으면서 중국 주도의 AIIB에 가입한 사례를 언급하며 미국과 중국의 대립각이 커질 경우 한국이 미국과 연합한다는 존 미어샤이머 교수의 주장은 무리가 있어 보인다고 했다.
이근욱 교수는 미어샤이머 교수의 이론적 가정에 의문을 제기했다. 미어샤이머 교수의 말대로라면 상대방의 의도를 알지 못해 불안한 국가는 단기적인 판단을 내리기 마련인데, 생존을 목표로 힘을 최대화하려는 국가는 장기적인 계획과 판단으로 국가를 이끌어나가기 마련이라, 이 두 점이 상충한다는 것이다. 또 한국이 결국은 자체 핵무기를 소유하는 쪽으로 갈 것이란 미어샤이머 교수의 의견에 대해, 중국의 영향력이 걷잡을 수 없이 커지는 마당에 한국이 핵무기를 소유한다고 해서 한중 간 힘의 균형이 크게 바뀌지는 않을 것이란 의견을 이야기했다.
이어진 질의응답 시간에는 세계적 석학인 미어샤이머 교수의 명성에 걸맞게 수많은 질문이 쏟아졌다. 중국의 일대일로 구상, 트럼프-김정은 정상회담, 러시아의 역할 등 중국과 한반도를 둘러싼 다양한 현안에 대한 질문이 오갔다.
2018년 3월 20일(화) 16:00-18:00
한국고등교육재단 컨퍼런스홀
________________________________________________________________________________________
John J. Mearsheimer 시카고대 정치학과 교수
미 시카고대 정치학과 교수. 웨스트포인트 육군사관학교 졸업(1970) 후 공군 장교로 5년간 복무했고, 코넬대 정치학과에서 박사학위를 받았다(1981). 현재 가장 저명한 국제정치이론가 중 한 명으로 안보와 국제정치에 관한 폭넓은 저작이 있으며, 통설과는 달리 핵확산이 가지는 안정적인 측면을 강조하였다. 미어샤이머 교수는 국제적 무정부 상태의 위험성과 그 상황에서 생존을 위해 노력하는 국가의 행동을 분석하는 공격적 현실주의(offensive realism)를 창시하였으며, 현재 그의 이론은 국제정치이론의 핵심 패러다임으로 자리잡고 있다. 저서로는 『재래식 억제』(1983), 『리델 하트와 역사의 무게』(1988), 『강대국 정치의 비극』(2001, 2014), 『이스라엘 로비와 미국의 외교정책』(공저;2007), 『왜 리더는 거짓말을 하는가? 지도자의 거짓말에 관한 불편한 진실』(2011) 등이 있다.

[@dzakiassuhud1825]

I would love a 4 hour John Mearsheimer lecture, please

[@DavidErdody]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aV7Ze2WaoNt_Zsk

[@Time4Peace]

Why? Because he is spreading fear about China?

[@saurabhchamoli2430]

He is speaks on no ones side. It is totally up to you how you take it. Atleast he takes both side approach not a single sided rhetoric by Kishore Mehbubani.

[@saurabhchamoli2430]

John has big heart and broad shoulders. He treats critics like his guests with a welcome and friendly nature.

[@tour-de-tour]

Google it, one can easily find his e-books for sure +4h lecture

[@davidqin7033]

The professor is never the less an excellent lecturer and charming.

[@raintree9872]

질문들이 그다지 명료하지 못했는데도 불구하고 미어셰이머 교수께서 핵심을 정확히 정리해주셨네요. 미어셰이머 교수의 님의 탁견에 감탄하지 않을 수 없네요. 그리고 진행자분이나 패널 분들의 경우 질문 방식이나 태도 면에서 아쉬운 점이 있다는 점을 지적하고 싶네요.

[@leonejung3372]

특히 저 회장님이라는 분께서는 이런 공개적인 장소에서 의견 개재를 자제하시기 바랍니다.

[@kjsytnmbcz003]

한국인 참가자들 영어부터 다시 공부하길

[@tour-de-tour]

Tokyo foundation만 봐도 moderator가 진행을 잘 합니다. 한국은 상식적이지 못할 정도로 질문을 한번에 10개 넘게 던지는게 정말 못 배우셨나 싶습니다, 빨리 세대교체가 되야 겠네요.

[@theod950]

이근욱교수님.. 몇년앞을 내다보셨구나..

[@Cosmos324]

와 저딴식으로 개판으로 질문해도 찰떡같이 알아들으시고 대답하시네.. 대단

[@rickgoblok1625]

That President is something else! Who gives a guest 15 questions to scribble down and then answer???

[@hellachan8080]

Different culture, I guess🤔.

[@tour-de-tour]

😂😂 not conventional in Korea… i’ve never seen this kind of practice in my life in Korea… i think they just need a better moderator 😂😂

[@hanuleye]

너무나 좋은 강의를 잘 들었습니다 감사합니다

[@raintree9872]

국가안보에 관한 중요하고 놀라운 내용의 강연임에도 불구하고, 아직 조회수가 4천을 조금 넘는다는 게 믿어지지 않는군요.

[@leejohns2010]

조회수가 4천인 현실인데 그것도 못 받아들이나요? 이해력이 제한된 분이네. 또는 한국인들이 지오팔러틱에 대해 관심이 없다는것도 모를만큼 한국인을 모르는건가? 이런 이슈에 관심있는 님이 타인보다 잘났고 비관심자는 한심하다는건가?

[@leejohns2010]

@King Ko 그건 님이 댓글을 보고 알순 없죠. 빠른 판단은 어린 아이들이 잘하죠.

[@leejohns2010]

@King Ko 한주 잘 보내시고.

[@user-et1vi6jo3w]

@@leejohns2010 니 댓글도 넌 잘났고 다른사람은 한심하다는 댓글인데

[@leejohns2010]

@@user-et1vi6jo3w 일반 국민들이 지오팔러틱에 무지하고 관심없는건 지구에 있는 모든 나라가 그래요. 새장안 시각으로 새장밖 동물에대해 코멘트 대부분은 한심한 수준이죠. 자기의 표현의 자유는 중요하고 남의 표현의 자유는 전혀 인지못하는.

[@KIMSHIUHN]

개쩔탱...

[@davidqin7033]

There are no theories intrinsic to the domain of international relations and there are a set of common senses borrowed from other fields of studies in social sciences and humanities, which are applicable to IR.

[@centerleft4957]

Great questions from professor Chung and professor Lee. Also, very balance answers from professor Mearsheimer. Notice the difference between Korean scholars' questions and Japanese scholars questions when professor visited Japan. Korean questions are more challenging and sometime even confrontation. Japanese questions are more diluted and subservient in nature. My question: If there is a limited war between China and America +Japan in the South China Sea or East China Sea, what does it have to do with South Korea? I think what professor Lee asked about offshore balance is that if there is any kind of limited kinetic conflicts, siding with American will have South Korea in the first line of fire. Professor Lee mentioned WW1 about America involvement at the late stage of war after Great European powers collectively suffered 15 million dead. Why should Korean become canon dust?

[@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022]

Personally, it is because USA losing that war would be absolutely detrimental to South Korean security. If USA loses in any sort of major confrontation against China, USA's international prestige and image will fall possibly resulting in a major pullout of American presence from the Indo-Pacific. Which would inevitably result in SK falling into Beijing's arms which wouldn't be a very pretty alternative. This kind of train of logic part of the reason why the Australians supported the British war effort in WW1 so valiantly. It's because they feared if Germany won, they'd fall under German umbrella (not necessarily Germany invading Britain, but UK just conceding colonies in peace treaties). The Germans already shared a border with the Australians in New Guinea which was quarter administered by Australia, quarter by Germany and half by the Dutch and had a significant presence in the Pacific with the Carolines and Qingdao. The reason USA could afford to stay out of WW1 for so long was because it could. USA doesn't have as much of a threat in case anybody in WW1 wins or loses, they're not strictly aligned with anybody. There was fear that the British may concede Canada in case of defeat or European held islands in the Caribbean (which was why US bought Danish Virgin Islands). But it isn't on the scale of what a Chinese victory against US would look like in SK's perspective.

[@ishrendon6435]

Japan has more of different behavior. In my country you dont treat the guest wrong and make him feel welcomed

[@Time4Peace]

@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 What Chinese victory? USA is trying all ways and means to wage a war (hot and cold) with China, not the other way round as it feels it can still overwhelm China by brute force economically, financially and even militarily. A military conflict between nuclear powers would be disastrous for all, so a proxy war by Taiwan will serve the purpose. Watch how Prof David Kang debated Mearsheimer point by point: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZLJdKBpm9J5bdU

[@junsong6718]

KFAS, 훌륭한 석학을 모셔 좋은 강의를 많은 사람이 들을 수 있게 해주네요. 좋은일 하십니다. 감사합니다. 남북관계가 인식이 주변국들에게는 우리와는 큰 괴리가 있고, 우리가 앞으로 나아가는 방향에 대해 생각하게 하는군요.

[@blue1570k]

지금 보니 다맞는 말이네....역시 석학이다

[@user-vv7ey1sm4d]

이거 엄청난 영상이네....

[@Whattsssskkk]

Why read all the questions at once? Didn’t really make sense.

[@collardrag]

한국이 핵을 보유해도 반주권국가가 되는 걸 피할 수 없다면 핵에 더해 뭘 더 해야 하는지 궁금한데 그게 대한 질문이 없는 게 아쉽네요

[@Time4Peace]

Prof David Kang is a Korean American prof of Stanford University. He is born into a family of the Sincheon Kang clan. He knows Korea and China (and US) very well. I wonder why he has not been invited to talk?

[@EUROBEATINTENSIFIES]

34:43 이근욱 교수님 혜안 ㄷ ㄷ ㄷ ㄷ ㄷ

[@calengr1]

55:32 lack of coop with Pu over Syria and Iran; 58M China imports 1/4 oil from PG; 58:58 CN - Turkish relations

[@tommyodonovan3883]

Turkey and India, regarding those two countries and their commitment to *"Containing China;"* I see the Indian and the Turks playing it down the middle, remaining neutral, because they would be the winner(s) if/when the USA/Minions and CCP-China fight eachother in a War or a Coldwar, they very well may destroy/weaken eachother, then Turkey and India would win without doing anything, selling/trading to both sides a la USA during WW 1&2.

[@gyzq]

Were India policy makers visionaries, they would stay out of conflicts between two super powers. Unfortunately, from their record, I believe Indian will side with Uncle Sam.

[@user-et1vi6jo3w]

47:24 1:11:54

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

What is Ib or lb?

[@yavin1504]

33:14

[@calengr1]

26:10 long term vs short term....eg UK 26:50 forfeited chance to thwart NSG by not raising defense spending; 66min time is on China's side,...... USA relative power set to decrease so Han should wait

[@calengr1]

21:44 USSR Econ power

[@DucaTech]

This did not age well. Russia invaded Ukraine. Mearsheimer still thinks Russia is not a threat.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

In the context of it being May 2022: ... there is a strip of land, above North Korea, between China and the sea, that is Russian. It almost looks like the coast line there is in direct line of site with a part of Japan's coast line. Also, sort of in a direct line across the ocean with the US/ Canadian border to the East, with Moscow across land to the west, and with Australia down to the south. A stupid idea ... how much would Russia want for that land in part along side Japan and directly above North Korea, and bordering it, say up to the highest level of the top border of China and at an angle, guesstimate 45°, to draw a line to the coast? That strip of land above North Korea along China, if bought, as US permanent soil (not property owned by US yet within Russia, but, sort of not unlike how Alaska became a state of the US?)? ... nearness to Japan, Taiwan, obviously, South Korea ... it seems not unreasonable, as a portion for Russia to actually consider it and possibly accept it ... any more than that though, might be pushing things too much. It seems like psychologically, an area that mirrored Australia in size would be the limit, and certainly more, like, yeah, no way in the world today. ... Would it make things worse, if there were US bases permanently there. Is it a bad strategic idea for the US? I don't know. What is more important: to make Putin pay and cripple Russia and therefore potentially providing an opening for Putin and Russia to, in effect, become ruled by China and be China - extending China into Euroasia and Europe, up to Ukraine's borders and increasing China's land based resources (like rare earth minerals, coal, oil, access to the arctic), production e.t.c.? ... Or ... for the EU (which essentially also includes the US, UK, e.t.c.) to stop squabbling and infighting, which is resource intensive, putting the whole world at risk, risking the start of WWIII, and which is literally destroying those purported to be in need of protection and being protected, to instead to form an alliance with Russia? ... wouldn't that open a gateway for diplomacy and trade with Euroasia and or the Middle East (Russia is part of Europe and Eurasia, as Turkey is part of Europe and the Middle East)? ... If Turkey and Georgia were part of the EU and EU had an alliance or special alliance with Russia ... how would the globe look then? .... proportionally, EU/UK/US compared with China/(Russia) or EU/UK/US/Russia compared with China? I still think Crimea sort of looks like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth. If it became the official EU capital, it would certainly allow the borders of the story to be told from a different perspective ... the outer would become the inner and the inner the outer ... the light, attraction, pull, would be on the middle, Crimea and the current centres would become the peripherals ... with periphery scenes for clandestine meetings in support of or to undermine the middle ... at any rate, it seems like migration would more likely be to where the light and the voice box is ... I don't know. Short version: ... where is the current fighting? ... what is it over ... exactly ...? ... it doesn't look like it might cease any time soon. ... Would it be impossible, in that area, to convert the type ... of war ... from war of might to war of words? i.e. Ukraine retain sovereignty, possibly join the EU, a section of Ukraine (with Ukraine's permission) become the de jure capital of the EU, a buffer area that is Ukraine and Russia ... NATO headquarters remain where they are ... ? and, ... which agreement already assures Ukraines borders? This wouldn't support military goals, with less negative impact on civilians than sanctions or lending/giving military equipment*, and or contribute to long term security, safety and lives of military personnel? *military equipment (that might get scavenged/reverse engineered/sent elsewhere/on sold and or seized? ... and an increased risk, that, doesn't seem like it would be impossible to forsee: friendly fire, and, fingers point, as if otherwise?). ... distance of Ukraine ... possible EU de jure capital, international embassies ... Iranian oil ... ? ... if a section of Ukraine (with Ukraine's permission) becomes the de jure capital of the EU ... the US would need an embassy there ... as would the UK and Russia and e.t.c. ... also, ... de jure capital of EU in Ukraine ... seems like there would be more cameras there then .... ... who can assist with knowledge and wisdom, to turn it into a historic moment? ... peaceful? ... Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Comments from elsewhere: Yin and Yang? ... ☯️ TCM ... five elements ... sheng and ko? ... 13:10 min ... (Sorry, I'm not sure I'm listening properly.) It sounds like a possible discussion about an imbalance in power, either by a result of control, an excess in relation to either a deficiency, neutrality, or another excess yet that is deficient by contrast, or, by a result of nurturing, a deficiency in relation to either an excess, neutrality, or another deficiency yet that is in excess by contrast? "John Mearsheimer: Great power politics on Ukraine" (CGTN) Some perspective, perhaps, or not? Minimum distance between Britain and Europe: 20 miles (32 km) ... ? Minimum distance between Taiwan and China: 81 miles (130 km) ... ? How did Germany go with taking over Britain in WWII? From a yin/yang perspective (this might not be correct): How much effort would be needed to 'take Taiwan', how much would it weaken China, and, how much hostility would it bring to China (direct or indirect: destructive), say compared with making a decision that, even though Taiwan is important, China is in a position to not need to take over Taiwan, with China being strong enough to be a nurturing ally, and, the goodwill that would bring to China? How much effort would it take China (with US support) to, say, "liberate" North Korea, over land, a place that relatively is seen as extremly deficient in maintaing humans-rights when compared to China, and so, in that context, would South Korea prefer, to border North Korea or to border China, and, while some may question motives, how much goodwill would be brought to China, if (with US support) North Korea were liberated and instead of being kept by China, North Korea allowed to heal with South Korea? How much effort would it take China to find a solution to an expanding desert and possible dehydration, rehabilitating the desert with edible grasses and trees, while providing an opportunity to take pressure off of some of the cities, providing opportunities for improved health, livibility, ... e.t.c. ... Example: "Town planners on a 'crusade' against TB could help us to redesign our cities post-COVID - ABC News" www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-25/what-planning-lessons-during-tb-outbreak-teach-us-about-covid19/100348914

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Does South Korea or Korea, have a constitution or something similar, and an approved English version for comparison? Short version: Significance of the US Constitution: in the US; outside the US. Significance of other parts of the world having their own constitution: to that part of the world; to the US. Significance of a Constitution in cohesion, flexibility, peace, competition, being kept accountable: from an internal point of view; from an external point of view. Examples: - an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" - framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. -"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, ... "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention." - if EU invested in coming up with their own Constitution. - the ability to converse with others based on their own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (your) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. - the ability to converse with others based on your own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (our) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. Crimea doesn't sort of look like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth? .................... Example: Part of a conversation on fb: A reply: Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science! , "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science!" ... that came from? The reply: Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere. Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it! People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples! A reply: Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish! "end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination" , that hasn't happened in history? ... how do people spread killer viruses? A reply: "Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!" , not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs? , almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist? ... also, seems a bit authoritarian. ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) and, ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter V: The States Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion") "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Australian Parliament House, website) (While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... )

[@yttean98]

At the current economic(high debt) and political(both political parties are dysfunctional and fighting each other) state of affairs in the US that will cause the economic and/or political system to collapse between now and year 2050 or possibly even earlier.

[@parasite3529]

US? that's non sense. you should know that Dollar is key currency.

[@tommyodonovan3883]

I see many similarities between the late Roman Republic and last stages of the current year USA Republic. As of 2020 the DS now determines the outcome of federal elections. It's so easy to surrender to state power, the all powerful state, the state as a religion. Even the richest man alive can be crushed like a bug by one of 1000's of petty government officials for any reason they choose (See *prescriptions).* That's real power.

[@calengr1]

19:24 East Asia today more dangerous N European plain 1980's........ risks better understood; 23:15 china and alliances .....

[@gdccpmo]

John in all his talks worldwide omitted one biggest assumption of his own, that is, countries all and will always favor US and an alliance with the US. That and the fact he seems to have very limited knowledge of the Chinese/oriental culture and history explain why he believes in his theories, which can be deeply flawed.

[@Cappuccinodude]

I disagree with your assertion that he has very limited knowledge about oriental culture and history. He has a lot of knowledge but he belongs to the offensive realist school of thought in International Relations which doesn't believe that things like culture influence a superpower's behavior. He consciously doesn't factor it in. Now you might disagree and say that all superpowers are not equal, and history and culture should be factored in. But you have to realize that Imperial Japan also was expansionist in nature; so there's no real evidence that if we had a unipolar world again in the future, a unipolar world dominated by an oriental superpower would be fundamentally different from a unipolar world dominated by a western superpower.

[@user-fb2me3th6z]

00:24 02:06 02:30 04:51 06:23 07:03 09:51 11:57 12:48 14:48 15:08 16:45

[@sed9406]

lobby

[@Time4Peace]

For someone who hated China so much, Professor Mearsheimer must be sorely disappointed that the Koreans are less concerned about China than Mearsheimer. They even showed scepticism of Mearsheimer's disproportionate fears of China as a threat. The sly prof even had to try instigating the Koreans not to wait for China to become too strong to take anti-China action. Why should Koreans submit to Mearsheimer's irrational fears of China? They are trading more with China. China has a policy of not interfering with other countries unlike US. Koreans and the world will be better off with a multi-polar world than to US-only hegemony. It's a pity that Mearsheimer couldn't ask Koreans the question he asked in his talk to Australians whether Australians are more comfortable with an American or Chinese hegemon!

[@tommyodonovan3883]

Asking/Expecting SK, Taiwanese, Australians, Japanese....not to trade with CCP-China is akin to asking/expecting Canada and Mexico to stop trading with the USA. *Ridiculous.* The Chinese will eventually push the Americans out past the 2nd island chain, or die trying, that's to say that they want it much more than the US wants it, and the US is 6000mi away.... secure in fortress America.

[@nutayahoo5000]

He is not the devil's advocate but the devil himself 😄 I don't think he hates China though.

[@rickgoblok1625]

u havent listened to part 1 of this talk if you think he hates china

[@Time4Peace]

@@rickgoblok1625 Whether it's hate, fear or distrust of China, the outcome is the same - fight China at all costs. In his debate with Hugh White to an Australian audience, he asked whether Australians want a US or China as a hegemon. He exaggerates China's threat, ambition and rivalry, with a zero sum game mentality. Prof Kang debated him point by point: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZLJdKBpm9J5bdU

[@wufeng1973]

별거 새로운 내용 없네요.거저 투키디데스 함정 가자는 의미로 밖에 이해 안돼네요.새로운 공존관계를 모색해야 합니다.

[@hautedaug]

pt 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnPEqnehgJ6kd7M

[@user-dw2zv1hf1f]

문정권 5년 동안 주권 국가이길 포기했는데. 이 영상을 보니 감회가 새롭네요. 이제 정상국가로 바꿔야합니다.

[@xiandi]

ㅋㅋ 봐꿔 보세요 결과어떤지 봅시다

[@newwaykim]

한국 교수님들 수준이.... 질문이 하나 두개도 아니고 좁은 시야로 질문하는데 질문 자체가 자기가 많이 안다는걸 보여주려는곳이 너무 무식해 보인. 아예 적어서 들이던가... 받아 적느라고 힘들어 죽겠네.ㅎㅎ

[@parasite3529]

뭔소리야 잘하고만ㅡㅡ

[@debruyne7209]

저 교수님들 중 한 분 서강대 교수님이신데 서울대 학석사에 외무고시 패스자에다 하버드 출신임..저 분야에서 되게 유명하신 분이고 진짜 똑똑하신 분임. 질문도 명료하구만 혹시 받아들이는 청자 문제 아님?

[@huill345]

질문은 심플하게 핵심만 해라. 영어실력 자랑하는 거냐?

[@pl494]

The host was embarrassing!

[@tommyodonovan3883]

How so? It was somewhat difficult for me as an English only speaker to understand some of the questions from some of the panel members & Audience but that said their English is much better than my Korean.

[@pl494]

@@tommyodonovan3883 I was not questioning his English. I was questioning the fact that he spoke too much and too long. I would avoid speaking too long at the beginning.

[@dongkwon1242]

It's too many questions he laid out at once. You just don't do that specifically multi-language were used in any kind meetings. Unless, it was all pre-synchronized.

[@davidqin7033]

The professor is an old school realist whose so called 5-point theory is nothing new and it was already known to primitive tribal men back to many thousands years ago.

[@tommyodonovan3883]

Mearshheimer has a 19th century geopolitical world view (5000yrs in the making), the Globalist Liberal World View has only existed since 1945.

[@rickgoblok1625]

liely when it comes to the international relations of great powers, there isn't anything new