John Mearsheimer on Realism and the Rise of China

John Mearsheimer joined the UM debate camp to discuss Realism and the Rise of China in the context of debate.

[@AwesomeBeatles]

The American media and education system have done a wonderful job in keeping Americans dumbed down in terms of understanding international politics.

[@rorykeegan1895]

It's actually the American public, rather than your media. Credit where credit is due, please. Most Americans have absolutely no interest in the rest of the world and even less knowledge it. United States citizens are the least travelled and worst informed in the civilised world. Your citizens are generally equipped by an education system that is nothing short of perverse in its lack of factual grounding. This is excabated by the completely mistaken idea that America is somehow the "best" place on the planet. From the outside the USA is nothing like it, and instead is a completely self absorbed political and social basket case with little grasp of history, no values and no clear understanding of facts in the real world. Money is everything to Americans. Mearsheimer is the only American commentator I have ever heard who understands the Great Game.

[@AwesomeBeatles]

@@rorykeegan1895 Most people do not understand the absolute influence the hidden oligarchs have over America. This country will not survive , if big changes are not made. So yes , I do not mean to blame the teachers or school boards. The education in America is a product of the globalist agenda , and America's place in that agenda.

[@mensrea1251]

Without doubt. How else can one explain the sheer number of wars the US engages in while continuing to delude themselves that they “come in peace”.

[@keffinsg]

@@AwesomeBeatles I agree completely with Rory Keegan. I just have one point to add. That Americans have a pathological tendency to attribute their problems to "the other". You have seen it all ad nauseam...blame the blacks, the Hispanics, Chinese, Russians, Jews. Now they blame the Media and Oligarchs for misleading them. But no American will face the ugly truth that they themselves refuse to pay attention to their conscience and common sense and allowed sweet whispers to seduce them. They have only themselves to blame for their troubles. I have no sympathy for them when their karma comes a calling.

[@AwesomeBeatles]

@@keffinsg Perhaps you are right. Maybe Americans are "self absorbed". Maybe they are the only ones self absorbed. Are we to believe there is a genetic component at play. Maybe these Americans are a different species. Or maybe we should consider these dim-witted Americans as a product of their environment. This would not be a stretch to imagine. Western culture has been under attack by hidden influences , for decades. The sudden changes in society ( open borders , forced diversity , transgender confusion , all manner of degenerate programming , the main streaming of pornography , a dumbing-down education system ,etc...) are not the slow natural evolution of a collective conscience , but a very deliberate and artificial control of social events. This is all happening much too rapidly to be thought of as anything but artificial. The term "sweet whispers" sounds like an acknowledgement of a deliberate deception to entice a people down the road of destruction. Look no further than the net work news , propaganda machines which control the flow of information . When combined with the dumbed-down education system , politics , lobbyists , social norms , Hollywood , religion, etc... these Americans do not know, what they do not know.

[@transcrobesproject3625]

Thank you YT algorithm for suggesting this, thank you Prof Mearsheimer and thank you debaters for hosting it!

[@DavidErdody]

John Mearsheimer's thoughtful, relevant discussions help me understand better our world. I thank him and The U-Mich for hosting him. He is a great academic speaker.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

So true...I've wondered, more than once, how I could have figured out the complex Ukraine/Russia situation. Fact - I could not! Mearsheimer was the first place I searched for answers since many years ago he discussed US and China. I recognized his brilliance. Those of us who listen, are far more sane, now that we understand the history and dynamics.

[@junk7774]

Our side of thinking and dynamics, btw. Not everyone are thinking like us, as they have their own distinctive history and culture.

[@RayDu]

As Chinese, we wouldn't like hearing the rhetoric of Mearsheimer, but his candor is very much appreciated. We welcome peaceful/rational competition from the US. It's only when the US takes on a moralist tone, masquerading itself as a saintly guardian of human rights, democracy, etc., that we start to feel disgusted to the guts.

[@jakobson219]

In China, you cannot criticize your country and its leadership the way Americans are doing in these comments without being arrested; Chinese scholars cannot say publicly about Chinese foreign policy what Mersheimer says about US policy, without being "disappeared". Your country is a dictatorship and you come here to teach us free speech and democracy lessons?

[@RayDu]

@@jakobson219 I guess part of what you said is true. But then, it's exceedingly ironic none of the "criticisms" has stopped the US from committing all the atrocious acts around the world, whereas China is an extremely sensible, peaceful state relative to its size and power. I wonder what went wrong stateside?

[@borisjj1788]

@@jakobson219 The million dollar question is if criticism or so called '"ree media" being heard makes you so pround of liberal democracy, why Western politicians, especially those clowns in DC (with all due respect) keep doing all these foolish things? Look at how desperate Prof. Mearsheimer is. Why these smart people's voice would be heard? Which party represents people, represents farmers, represents truck drivers, represents factory workers if one person one vote makes you so proud of? If you deeply think about that, you may understand it is likely you are fooled by the words created by guys on top such as freedom and liberal democracy.

[@borisjj1788]

@@jakobson219 Yes, you are right. I really envy the freedom of criticising your leaders at your will, while Chinese can not, at least publicly. And I envy you have professors like Mersheimer saying what he wants to say. However, if free speech/criticism works, today's Werstern counries, especially US will be ten times stronger I guess. If you look at history, it's never human rights, freedom, liberty and democracy making British empire the British empire, US empire the US empire, right? In 1776, The Delaration of Indepedance, all Men are created equal, well-said, but one question, how should I define Men？Are women men? Are blacks men? Are native Indians Men? Or only those slave owners are MEN. In China intelligent scholars like John are highly respected by top leaders, and their voices are clearly heard and then their suggestions are implemented by top leaders. Simple and Clear!

[@jamesrobertson9697]

@@RayDu Mearsheimer calls the US a crusader state. China does the same thing against other nations. Taiwan, Tibet, etc. China is a crusader state too.

[@ssong1996]

Don't assume China always needs US. Remember, China was used to be rich and regional power until 18th century. The cultural revolution taught China a hard lesson and I believe China is getting to her old glory.

[@brownvoltaire2722]

@@yuyuan3013 China has existed 2500 years,US is like a baby compared to China

[@brownvoltaire2722]

@@yuyuan3013 Pinky lerper,using a chinese name

[@tobeornottobetobeornottobe974]

@@yuyuan3013 this type of words are bad and shows how much you are ignorant.

[@PKL244]

Unfortunately we have disastrous CCP🥲

[@AO-gn4hc]

Another question of interest to me is "Can the US decline peacefully?" , for we are declining.

[@davidlawrence8085]

can the US decline gracefully......peacefully ......yes . The millions of $$ the weapons industry pumps in to congress .. says no ....we are gonna fight ( someone ...somewhere it doesnt matter what where ) and maintain king of the hill.

[@muudcatt9541]

absolute decline or relative decline? Nothing's gonna change if the US declines but not have its regional hegemon challenged. But declining to the point of losing regional hegemon or not being able to prevent the emergence of another regional hegemon just loops back to the question of can China rise peacefully. it's the same question

[@jasonbenyousky4467]

@@muudcatt9541 regionally, no nation can even come close to competing with the US. In the americas, the US has its boot on the face of Central America and especially Mexico, and canada at this point is so close to the US that their power is intertwined. In SA, Venezuela and Bolivia have already seen what the US and the Anglo sphere can do to maintain hegemony. I doubt that any regional powers will compete with the US in the Americas for quite some time

[@muudcatt9541]

@@jasonbenyousky4467 Of course, no country in the western hemisphere has any chance to challenge US hegemony in the region. But what Mearsherimer is arguing is that another hegemon from a different region has the ability to infiltrate the western hemisphere and threaten the US because the incoming hegemon also has no security threats in its own "backyard", and that's why the US won't allow the emergence of any hegemon in any regions. China will never become a hegemon in East Asia as long as the US has any military presence in East Asia, by the same logic, the US will no longer be a regional hegemon if China were to have military presence in the western hemisphere.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

@@muudcatt9541 i only see wars ahead of us. (We the people.)

[@kennywill2224]

Great synopsis by El maestro John Mearsheimer. Thank you for enlightening us.👏👏👏👏👏

[@ricelaker]

This man is very intelligent, one great teacher, eloquent and just one very nice man

[@wk9378]

But too two dimensional.

[@thanpisittadsri2027]

@@wk9378 war and peace

[@gorbachevspizzahut2809]

Very nice lmfao

[@bambang9897]

this is a very valuable lecture. Within an hour and a half, the core of the world's geopolitics has been laid out.

[@G8tr1522]

thanks. wasn't sure if this was worth the watch.

[@galt67]

Great discussion and lecture! Thanks for posting it!

[@brucelu4782]

This type approach is used to rationalize current us/west aggression based on projection of future Chinese aggression, which in turn is based on past us/west aggression. In summary, past and current aggression committed by us/west, are justified by future Chinese aggression. This is called realist approach, which is still more honest than defending freedom rhetoric.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

China is already being aggressive, there is no need to project into the future. Just ask their neighbors.

[@Carl-Gauss]

@@Laotzu.Goldbug Well, at least China is only aggressive to its neighbors unlike the US.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

@@Carl-Gauss that is merely a result of lack of capability, not lack of desire. That said, it's kind of irrelevant, there is no "at least" about it. There is no moral superiority about punching the guy next to you rather than punching the guy across the street

[@zelenskythegaynazi8680]

@@Laotzu.Goldbug There you go like a typical war monger who's obnoxious, narcissist, arrogant and ignorant. Have you been to Asia?? Have you spoken to all China's neighbor one by one? Me as one and thousands others f not millions will smack the face of American arrogance if they ever dare to meddle or set their forces here.

[@brucelu4782]

@@Laotzu.Goldbug No surprise, as long as anyone dares to push back against Uncle Sam and his lackeys is defined at aggressive by BBC/CNN etc..

[@MariaVazquez-du3st]

Thank you so much Val and University !

[@evanstential]

Watching this now! How relevant its is!!

[@alanOHALAN]

China is basically what every country wants to be: Prosperous and peaceful.

[@jakobson219]

lol! 🤣

[@AbtinX]

China is peaceful? What about Iraq, Afghanistan? Militarising the Ukraine? Bombing nine countries in the middle east and Africa?

[@alanOHALAN]

@@AbtinX China didn't bomb. What you talking about?

[@AbtinX]

@@alanOHALAN oh right! That was America. All of those wars, America. And China had nothing to do with it. Amazing.

[@houtsong2128]

Impressive lecture!

[@chej9]

Man, I never listen to those, but that was an amazing intro. It really shows how much she respects Mr. Mearsheimer

[@unopinionated1823]

What an incredible and brilliant rational mind!

[@abdourahmanealkhalifa191]

There is a big assumption in this theory that is China will imitate the US. This assumption disregards both history and domestic politics. Historically, China has never been a colonial expansionist country like European powers in the 16th century onward. Regarding domestic politics, for thousands of years the main concern of the Chinese emperors was to keep China united, stable and prosperous, given that it has such a huge population and territory. The CCP will not be an exception to this rule because China still has enormous social and economic challenges.

[@ChesaFreakBoyzFishingVideos]

I do not think that there is any question that the Chinese Belt and Road initiative is an expansionist, neo-colonial pursuit. I do generally believe that history and domestic conditions inform decisions most of the time. I take the Marxist approach most often when looking at international relations after globalization. Neoliberalism has metastasized, and power is becoming diffuse. We are heading towards a turbulent multipolar world with popular movements driving policy more and more. Either that, or repressive regimes and reactionary politics win the day, with the domestic politics of repression muting their effect on foreign policy decisions.

[@abdourahmanealkhalifa191]

@@ChesaFreakBoyzFishingVideos The aim of the Belt and Road Initiative is to facilitate trade between China and other countries through helping these countries in building the necessary infrastructures to achieve this goal, such as roads, ports, trains and power plants. For many countries this is the only opportunity to get themselves out of poverty, especially in Africa. Thus, the Belt and Road Initiative is no way close to the traditional European colonialism. I doubt if you know that France still financially and politically colonises many countries in west Africa. The former French president Jacques Chirac acknowledged that "without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third world power". It is because of this neo-colonialism by France west Africa is kept poor despite its huge natural resources. However, the emergence of China on the African continent will disturb this French neo-colonial order and will free west Africans from it forever!

[@ChesaFreakBoyzFishingVideos]

@@abdourahmanealkhalifa191 you are failing to realize that China operates under the same capitalism America does. That’s what the world market is: capitalist. Essentially, China is just taking over the economic influence of retracting European and American power. It’s nation building; it’s the same bullshit international development under a different flag. Sure China may be marginally better, but it’s still expansionism. It’s also a clear use of soft power across multiple continents...

[@ChesaFreakBoyzFishingVideos]

@@abdourahmanealkhalifa191 Of course it isn't traditional European colonialism, but that does not mean that it is not the neoliberal post-colonial era equivalent. Experts, at least those free of western bias, seem to characterize it as the Chinese answer to globalization. You can call globalization anything you want... what it did do was create a neo-colonial paradigm in which the international institutions were western dominated and single-export extractive economies. I think if China is playing power politics with the united states, then have at it. I do not want the US to be the worlds largest economic and military power, because I want to end capitalism. Xi claims the same and yet he is playing the exact same capitalist game as the western powers on the international stage. When you say: "The aim....is to facilitate trade between China and other countries through helping these countries in building the necessary infrastructures to achieve this goal, such as roads....". All I have to say to you is this, you used the same EXACT justification every western power or multinational corporation used to expand operations into sovereign countries--economic or otherwise. The US justified the War on Iraq as an effort to help the Iraqi people, then they justified staying for over a decade to help build infrastructure. Its the same bs. China is a capitalist country with expansionist ambitions, this much can be said for sure. Sorry, but the 'we just wanna help' excuse is just lazy and doesn't describe reality. and yeah, I know about France holding onto its colonial possessions in North Africa (and everywhere else, frankly). It's a pretty basic world historical fact, but I'm happy to say that I do indeed know about it. I just do not know wtf it has to do with anything we are talking about here....

[@SalvatoreSuarez]

@@ChesaFreakBoyzFishingVideos damn man you're nailed that on the head haha. Plus history time an time again shows China as a colonial power. It's literally colonizing Turkic-majority areas of China to dilute it's ethnic diversity--that's colonialism. Plus, it's invaded Vietnam 27 times in the past 1000 years, and occupied them for antoher 1000 before that. It also colonized Taiwan and killed the indiginous population (the "barbarians"), and it had an entire regional sino-order for hundreds of years. If anything, history shows China will be equally imperialist as the West. Imperialism is part of human nature, but it's only the powerful who can do it.

[@osamasameer3221]

Brilliant article

[@Schahri1]

wonderful lecture about great power politics. thx

[@MrTejes555]

Uj

[@MrTejes555]

\

[@MrTejes555]

\u

[@MrTejes555]

Uuu

[@MrTejes555]

Uu\\

[@rainazarhayat]

Highly informative and extremely interesting... 👏

[@TheTDTDT]

Great talk on US geopolitics.

[@userone6076]

This is his best talk, and I've seen a lot of them.

[@tsuikr]

Professor Mearsheimer is a westerner, and I assume he was trained only in the western cultural way. He looks at the world from the western cultural way and I doubt if he understands the Chinese way of looking at international relations. At least two of his five assumptions are questionable from a Chinese point of view. The first one is that the world is anarchic, at least in the old days China did not look at it that way. Relationship between nations were compared to family relations such as uncle-nephew, or brotherly, etc.. Secondly, survival is the principle goal of the state. Well it is a principal goal, but not the principle goal, certainly not the first principle goal. The first principle goal was the mandate from heaven, which was to rule the country so the citizens can live better! If professor Mearsheimer is correct he also reveals a paranoiac trait of the western nations. They have an insecurity complex, are always suspicious of other nations so they inevitably want to be stronger than the next country, that mean they always strive to be the world hegemon!

[@zhangeric2911]

You are right, They know nothing about China.

[@woutdezeeuw1604]

The world is anarchic in the sense there is no world law above individual state law that states must adhere to. Each state makes up their own laws, and as such it's effectively anarchy. You can see it in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Russia can to a considerable extent do as it pleases, because there are no laws that can stop Russia in this conflict. Being unfamiliar with Chinese culture, but how does China's first principle goal as you describe it fit with China's view that Taiwan is/should be part of China? Does China think that this would make China's/Taiwan's citizens' lives better?

[@hueanhnguyen1886]

1. "Relationship between nations were compared to family relations such as uncle-nephew, or brotherly" with China always being the uncle and the big brother to other states. That right there is assumption 1 and 2 together: The world is anarchic with China having a lot of offensive military power 2. "The first principle goal was the mandate from heaven, which was to rule the country so the citizens can live better". The term "citizens" here doesn't extend to people from colonies of China. Citizens having better lives goes hand in hand with a flourishing economy, making China again not having to worry about survival. Survival is still the key

[@xerichu]

Totally agreed Mearsheimer is biased by his Western point of view

[@Thomes-Maisling]

@@xerichu He also often oversimplifies and underestimates the factor that states are made up of many people, and are not just amorphous entities on a geopolitical board. The overall morale of a nation is always a factor in the power of a state, even in autocracies. Though IMO his greatest weakness as an intellectual is that he rarely if ever grounds his hypotheses by quoting sources.

[@MaitreyaNow]

My take from this is fingers crossed China becomes a global hegemon and the US gives up and concentrates on its regional security. I'd rather do business with China Belt and Road style than the US at the end of the barrel of a gun. Let's just hope China's power doesn't go to their heads to the same degree as it has with the US...

[@muluk4]

Already happening)

[@JayTray.43]

Well that’s just stupid every global hegemonic power has been the same they may have different style however they do the same thing Establish spheres of influence dominate military Be very rich and economical powerful Then inevitably collapse only difference is china rose again however assuming china will be some liberator to the world from western (USA Primarily) imperialism is just naive and wrong remember people thought the us would be some peaceful freedom loving power that was different from the uk and look how that turned out

[@MaitreyaNow]

@@JayTray.43 Well that's where we are at. Praying for a shift that will take the US off the map in terms of influence in the hope the rest of the world can then get things done without the global bully sticking it's fist in every time. It's either that or hope their is a shift in politics in the US but the world will be burnt to a crisp before that is allowed to happen. China has got my vote. Hell I'll even learn Mandarin.

[@JayTray.43]

@@MaitreyaNow I’d bet more on India but if china does deliver and stops the global tyranny of my government then go I’ll support china but I do have some concerns

[@worlddj1364]

Every empire will turn mad at the end

[@alialvi8064]

Wow . . . So many good & relevant questions asked. I wonder what’s the composition of the audience.

[@mrpassion242]

In a country where monopolies are illegal, i cannot fathom the idea as to why the US do not want a peer competitor.

[@Haasenpfeffer]

Prof Mearsheimer, “principle” on your PowerPoint should read “principal”. Thank you for your wonderful body of work.

[@jrgenhgh9395]

I am danish. I have no problems with the U.S. american people. But I have problems, with their leaders. And also with the leaders in my own country. I love my country and my people. But i´m embarassed that Denmark followed USA into the war in Iraq.

[@cam35mm]

The biggest assumption by Mr. Mearsheimer is this suppose US allies. When push comes to shove will these allies come to US side if a hot war starts. Remember most of these are allies by heavy arm twisting backed by the biggest military. The ball has already started rolling, people around the world is starting to get sick of our shit. When there is an alternative country that can stand up to us many may abandon the old alliance, because they are tired of the gun being held to their heads.

[@ericmiller254]

The idea would be wait it out and only acts of aggression that could unify a set of allies would be moved on. Like german aggression pre ww2 that galvanized the allies. If given the choice between living under Chinese boots or having to deal with Americans....All China's neighbors will choose us If china just grows and grows economically and remains very domestically focused.....Well maybe there is some universe where they're so conservative we lose allies. But if you listen to the Chinese they aren't likely to be that patient. Places like japan, vietnam, S Korea, and India all have very strong incentives to back us for centuries

[@wk9378]

In Asia, other than Japan & Australia, US really does not have any allies that they can really rely on (John is very wrong about US's "Allies"). Most Asian countries only wants peace & prosperity and will go to great lengths to avoid one.

[@gangshan]

Taiwan still has 40% of citizen who don't object to unification in some loose firm with China motherland. But their voices are suppressed becoz current government use all kinds of rules and laws to suspend their channels or scare them with penaltis or prison sentences.

[@rodelbia]

favoloso! dopo aver passato quasi 1 ora a spiegare che la politica di potenza consiste nell'essere un regional egemon ( l'unico nella storia gli USA) e impedire agli altri di diventarlo (3 guerre) l'intervistatrice chiede se gli USA siano un regional o global egemon. Mi chiedo dove sia stata durante la lezione

[@camelpissdrinkernabimuhamm6611]

Wow such enlightened lecture

[@kanyamagaraabdallah8300]

merci mon soeur!

[@wk9378]

The question should be "Will the US allow China to rise peacefully"?

[@DavidErdody]

Good

[@aleph0x]

No.

[@clovisra]

Good question. The US is not allowing Russia to get on its feet. We can see now, february 2022, the real US intentions: 'Russia delenda est!'

[@christophereduardo9903]

Also notice how the speaker is overtly biased in favour of the US empire. That bias must be taken into account.

[@guestaug6539]

That is not surprising. He works for (and is paid by) the University of Chicago, which is very much part of the US establishment.

[@brez7029]

this is near moronic. Mearsheimer is known to have very controversial takes about the United States's fault in terms of international relations. For example, he recently went on record saying the Ukraine crisis was completely caused by the United States (very US biased huh?)

[@simonsaragih3468]

What a very sory telling with all its logics... Enlightening..

[@jameswilson3807]

I think that the Chinese people are very happy that you are not in charge. Applying a Western point of view (desire for hegemony) on the Chinese shows how little you know of this continental culture.

[@hueanhnguyen1886]

Can you explain a little?

[@jameswilson3807]

​@@hueanhnguyen1886 Mearsheimer is basically applying western philosophical/political/historical thought processes to a non-western culture; the Chinese. To say this is how we (the West) perceive the situation and the resolution of any problems, then all other nations/civilizations (in this case China) will have the same thought processes and conclusions is simply ridiculous. He is talking about one country, the USA, that has a limited history, a biased political system (biased to the ultra-wealthy), and a rejection of any philosophy that is "Asian" as being useless. The Chinese people, by all accounts and research by Western universities and institutions, are very happy for the government they have. This government does not use any of the analysis that Mearsheimer is espousing; they even listen to western communist and reject there thought and opinions, preferring socialism with Chinese characteristics.

[@ritaalano7929]

I do agree that China would want to become as powerful as possible, but not for expansion purposes, but to prevent what happened in 1840 to happen again. Accordingly, 1. China is building islands along its southern coasts to act as unsinkable warships. 2. China is building state of the art fighter planes capable of flying across the Pacific Ocean. 3. China is building a powerful and technologically advance naval force. 4. China is building a mighty, efficient and indomitable People's Liberation Army. 5. China will keep on improving its military prowess because we don't want what happen since the Opium War in 1840 to plague us again.

[@HoradrimBR]

Two actors that could be included on paralel to national states: internacional organizations (world religions, political-ideological organizations, etc) and extraordinary individuals. These two actors could very well be necessary as explanatory tools to irrational national-state behaviour. Besides that, the general ideias of Professor Mearsheimer are very much correct and well explained.

[@junehalog024]

Religion and politics... Not good bedfellows. They never was to begin with and if they do happen to go side-by-side, often times, they turn tragic.

[@79wouter]

Would countries still fear other countries if economic abundance was achieved?

[@lanklein8043]

Keep in mind he is a realist. Is the Western politics these days liberal or realistic? The assumption that the state will act rationally or prudently largely depends on the realistic analysis . If the driving force, namely people, are more and more ideologically motivated and pursue more instant pleasure, the result would be very different.

[@seangleason260]

I've only had the chance to listen to about 1/3 of this so idk if he does, but I'd love to hear his take on the Mexican/Chinese relationship in relation to lithium deposits found in 🇲🇽 that seemingly 🇨🇳 has its eye on

[@strwind]

The whole South America is full of lithium and it is not as rare as many other minerals. Plus, it’s right next to the US, so I don’t think China will spend much energy here.

[@amittiwary7432]

India will not be part of any effort to contain China..however business competition will remain.despite Covid and LAC clash Sino India business is still 100 by dollars.Strong India and one India good for China ..Strong China and one China good for India.End of theory.

[@junehalog024]

Depends. If it is for the benefit of India, they will not hesitate. Fact is, every country goes along if it is for their best interest. Remember... Best interest doesn't mean it is fair for everybody..

[@amittiwary7432]

@@junehalog024 We believe in one world one family Vasudevam Kutumbakam(Google it)..So just like every family we also must have curfew hours..dishwashing rules..etc etc.go to bed rules ..I don't see broadminded and educated and literate people having problem in communicating to others.

[@dxq3647]

@@amittiwary7432 We must unite. The western powers see us as bloodthirsty barbarians who only understand power, when in fact, China and India, two ancient civilizations have been able to exist through defense and peaceful policies.

[@amittiwary7432]

@@dxq3647 Peaceful coexistence..There is misunderstanding due to language .but our shared history of 5000 years is of peace and travel to learn each other's cultures and tradition.🙏

[@TheTravelmad]

That’s not true, China does not respect its neighbors including India. It’s better to align with US both economically and for security reasons

[@megancyloneight9822]

Jason Jorjani makes a great presentation on Persian as world hegemon in Iranian Leviathan.

[@SlugSage]

How is the modern regional hegemon in Europe?

[@futures2247]

It seems when John uses the word 'survival' he means dominance?

[@guestaug6539]

The biggest flaw in prof. Mearsheimer’s argument is the assumption that China will treat its SE Asian neighbors just like the USA treated Latin America. This is highly unlikely. The British learned from the mistakes of the empires that had preceded theirs. The US has learned from the mistakes of the British Empire. For example, the US gives more independence to its “colonies” in Latin America than the British allowed in India. The Chinese have learned from the mistakes made by both the USA and the USSR.

[@wareagleA5]

There is no flaw, China is already acting just like the West with promises of money for infrastructure projects. China didn't invent putting other countries into debt to build the infrastructure that is needed for trade. This isn't something so nefarious, it's how the world currently works. China has had a fiat currency in the past and failed horribly at it, look it up, they should be grateful that the west came along to teach them how to get leverage with their currency. Look at the condition that Germany has Italy and Greece in, two absolute economic jokes that would be nothing without the Euro.

[@SalvatoreSuarez]

Yes but you have to recognize that to some extent, China almost feels entitled to great power status and regional hegemony. China not having immense power and control over East Asia isn't what China is used to, and considering that China has invaded Vietnam alone 27 times in the past 1000 years (it invaded them in the late-70s) and maintained a tributary system for centuries, it stands to reason that China will attempt to create another similar regional order. Think Chinese NATO or Chinese EU--it wants to end non-Chinese influence within it's backyard, and it considers most of East Asia as it's backyard.

[@guestaug6539]

@@SalvatoreSuarez 27 times in 1000 years is pretty damn rare 😄 compared to how often the UK, USA, and other Western powers have invaded and colonized other nations over the past 300 years.

[@wareagleA5]

@@guestaug6539 Invading and colonizing is what you do when you're the big dog, you should go pick up a history book. You should also try to figure out why the Chinese invited the USA in. Mao was a Marxist idiot that flatlined their economy. The CPC even brags about how much height and health the Chinese have gained since opening up to becoming a market based economy. They will now exploit the countries around them and we should all be realist about it instead of fools. I'm happy for the Chinese, look at all the other fools that invited in their exploiters and never amounted to anything. The Chinese stayed united, the Latin American's didn't, the Indians didn't etc etc. The world is full of people that were seduced into division by thinking they were owed more, now look at them.

[@lutherblissett9070]

History suggests they will treat their neighbour like vassals. They did exactly that when they were the top dog. There's nothing especially peaceful about the Chinese. They like to push that message because they know most people are absolutely clueless about Chinese history. The truth is China's been as brutal and oppressive as any other country when it saw fit to be so. They'll probably be more restrained and intelligent than the USA for a while, but eventually hubris will get to them the same as it got to every other superpower. Remember the USA was deeply isolationist for a long time, until it got a new taste for conquest after WW2.

[@bhuvanc4992]

Asia is not North America. There is a huge difference in history, geography, and culture. China can never dominate here like the US has done in NA.

[@Lindatong2]

Looking at history, when there is an emerging No. 2 to challenge No. 1, conflict does not necessarily occur - for example, US did not fight England after WWI, Russia did not get into hot war with US.

[@alanOHALAN]

1.75 x speed is great.

[@T65XJ]

Thank you

[@rickzeng1882]

So the logical deduction of his theory of great power politics is rooted in the Anglo Saxon history and especially the U.S history, which is just a short time span in human civilisation as a whole; then he extrapolate such theory to a country with huge cultural and philosophical differences from the Anglo Saxon one, and project future possible scenarios with such extrapolation...doesn’t seem to be a scientific methodology at all, but stimulating enough to cause possible human suffering across the world, so where is the academic ethics in this?

[@sumitshresth]

Why do you think its rooted only on anglo saxon history? Just look at the ancient roman and Sasanian empire. Both tried to continue and expand their hegemony even 1000 years ago. Thing is this is new to china though since it was isolated for long time from rest of asia (especially west side) and was too big to deal with other land. But that rule wont work anymore something she knew during the century of humiliation where it tried to further isolate herself. Instead she should have invested on defense and security as john says here. If she doesnt do that even now it would be divided into 5 provinces like what was done to ussr.

[@rickzeng1882]

@@sumitshresth strictly speaking, Roman, Sassanian and all Chinese empires are just regional hegemonies, owe to the nature of continental civilisation, but the Anglo Saxon ones are different, due to its oceanic nature. So my argument is that there is no proof whatsoever to say that China would want to be the global hegemony, it’s now more of an issue that the U.S would want to continue to be the global hegemony, and thus cannot accept a regional one, then paint the picture that this regional one (China) would eventually want to be a global one, thus create an image of national enemy for China. Ironically, sometimes people shall be careful of what they ask for, sociology is not natural science, there would be self fulfilling prophecy, and therefore scholars in sociology, history and politics should be more careful in what they advocate.

[@sumitshresth]

@@rickzeng1882 if you watch end of the video he says US as regional hegemony and china as upcoming regional hegemony. No one is global hegemony currently as per him. His argument for china being future threat is once it becomes regional hegemony it can be free to travel to other regions like europe or america like what US does currently in asia or africa with its navy. This is something britain did before US and now done by US. Its totally normal for that to happen with china coz if it tries to limit its sphere of influence to its nearby than it wont be easy to maintain that. Only by making US busy with its own regional defence like what US does to china by surrounding it with US allies like taiwan, south korea or japan does china can finally be free to be regional hegemony. Right now US does not have any fear for its own surrounding countries so doesn't keep its navy or army in its own surrounding.

[@rickzeng1882]

@@sumitshresth well maybe we have different understanding but what I take is that John is exactly suggesting the U.S to give up the position of global hegemony and retract to be a regional one, that means it is still a global one at the moment, and this is proved by its military presence around the world. Whereas for China, the civilisation has never been a missionary one (except for a short period last century when it participated in the global communism movement), then on the other hand China is dedicating huge resources to develop technology and infrastructures for renewable energy, if it eventually achieve independence in energy supply, then ideologically and economically it doesn’t need to control the world like the U.S does

[@sumitshresth]

@@rickzeng1882 Looks like you didnt watch the entire video. During Q&A session he does mentions US as being regional hegemony and China targeting to be regional hegemony of asia. Also a part of Q&A one question is asked if prosperity trumps security concerns and he gives proper reasons as to why economic growth does not stop a country for being regional hegemony since security is always important than prosperity. China is investing in becoming self sustainable because it knows its huge population cannot take the American route of excess consumption. But you might already know china is consuming like Americans now in all respect. Also, china has kept military presence in africa and sri lanka. So, Your argument that china wont take american route is already false. I mean there is nothing wrong with china doing all that. As john points out it is out of necessity for china to be regional hegemony if it has to survive into new century. As Chinese philosophy says if kingdom looses mandate of heaven it doesn't take time for china to breakup into multiple provinces led by warlords. So, china will try to be hegemony as much as possible to keep its masses happy by providing cheap resources using what ever military, technological or any other might possible.

[@borzan007]

He is offensive structural realist. I have one question for him: what if Taiwan wants to join mainland China? Because of Nationalist/Economical reasons.

[@AlexLi8]

On the Taiwan issue, Professor Mearsheimer said he believed that China would not mind suffering an economic setback for taking Taiwan back. Here again, the assumption is that China will suffer an economic setback if they insist on taking Taiwan. But who says China will necessarily have an economic setback? How do we know unification with Taiwan will not strengthen China's economy? Let's look at it from a different angle. The US dollar is the world reserve because of what? it is because it is the currency of the United States. The keyword here is United. If it is not the United States but becoming separated States as some separatists in the country hoped, will the US dollar still have the world confidence in it? I guarantee you it will not. The whole world will see the US as an unstable collection of States and will dump the US dollars like no tomorrow (so please do not have a civil war and split the United States). For the same logic, if China united with Taiwan, peacefully or forcefully, the Taiwan issue as we know it will stop existing. History will turn a new page and the world will see China as a more stable country than before, more investment will flow to China and the Chinese yuan will strengthen.

[@typicalKAMBlover21]

I think Chinese economy will suffer. US will make sure of that, just like what they are doing with Russia now. They know that sanctioning Russia will impact European economy and make themselves weaker, but they will still do that no matter how stupid it is. Russia is ultimately gonna be allied with US in face of the threat of China, but US is delaying that by hurting Russia. 伤敌一千，自损八百 is not the US policy, 伤敌八百，自损一千is. As the strategic competition with China grows, US will learn its lesson and be more shrewd about its strategy. The more China waits on the Taiwan issue, the more favorable it is for China.

[@SquireWaldo]

Why won't anyone listen to this guy???? He is almost always 100% right when you go back after a few years!

[@IzabelParis]

Mearsheimer 🤩

[@eymeeraosaka2954]

Great talk Prof Mearsheimer.....If I may add another Counter-Argument #3 ? The basic assumption of your Theory is that China will continue to rise and challenge the hegemony of the US in the South China Sea. Unwittingly, you assumed the US will always be stronger than China militarily? Could this be an erroneous assumption 10 or 20 years down the road? Unless the US is very certain it is vastly superior than China militarily, this in itself could be a deterrence?

[@mensrea1251]

Actually if you read his books on the topic he is consistent that he believes China could eventually overtake the US in terms of military power. He’s very clear on that because the two main inputs that support military power is population and economic potency, both of which China can easily challenge the US on.

[@ritaalano7929]

Economic interdependence will NOT be a factor in preventing a Sino/American war simply because China wouldn't care: 1. China has lived without the US for 2,500 years, living without the US for another 2,500 years will be easy. 2. China has planned for living without the US with the building of the Belt & Road projects. These B&R projects go into parts of the world that the US has basically ignored. And these B&R projects areas combined is BIGGER than the US!

[@user-gc9yh2ic4q]

Thanks! Enjoyed first half of the self debate part but the theories have really big holes. Here are some of them First of all, "liberal democracy" really carries no weight in international relationship. Though it appears in propaganda most often, you only need to look at US's past and current friends like Saudi Arabia (bone saw / Yemen) to konw that is true. Secondly, nuclear weapons are't that revolutionary and it won't really stop wars. Guess most are quite aware of that by now but I just like to mention the US effort in 2 directions. One adjustable yield warheads. Second missile defence. If you can nullify either enemy's defence or offence capability it does not matter it's nuclear or not. Let alone the potential hypersonic missiles. Thirdly, Taiwan is not really a national pride issue for China. Even numerous US/western think tank said openly the stretegic location makes a choke point of China so that's the real reason US still keeps it as a leverage today. Taiwan's future is not decided by people on tha island but rather by the Sino-US relationship. Though I like the open minded debates. I must say the contents are really bad. It's nothing but good old plotting. If you are interested in refining such skills I recommend you read "Romance Of the Tree Kingdoms", a classic novel based on ancient Chinese plotting 2000+ years ago and you'll probably find that more refreshing than the US projection. After all these, I must say that mordern nation state is the wrost invention of mankind, ever. It has caused huge amound of division and violence. People started dying and killing each other for flags and collective pride or hatred. Unimaginable amount of resources and efforts are wasted in either killing or avoid being killed, to quench the lust of greedy merchants and politicians. Huge losses of progress and wisdom to our civilization (if it can be called). If we can't get beyond this, we'll be forever living in the past. Extinction might be a mercy to the whole species. With global warming and the looming WWIII we have already run out of time. If we can't improve ourselves, we'll end one way or another.

[@ce1474]

what is the alternative to nation states?

[@user-gc9yh2ic4q]

@@ce1474 yes. But you need a bit of IQ or wisdom to see the answer. Mankind has to be united one day. Before that, a multi polar world, in which people learn how to live peacefully and equally with each other instead of exploiting and killing, for the profit and vanity of a few.

[@antonioalquino2600]

Good

[@calengr1]

01:22:28 :Structure of the international system impels state stop expand even tho they may have misgivings....regional hegemony is taken for granted in USA .....key goal from USA thru 1900......

[@metmah]

Mearsheimer is a national treasure

[@keffinsg]

The problem is that Mearshimer assumes that the Chinese thinks like a European/American. He should try to answer this question: in 1405, decades before the voyages of Columbus, Ming Dynasty China sent a huge fleet of 300 ships and 30,000 sailors and marines that sailed through southeast Asia, India, Arabia down to East Africa. They encountered plenty of petty and weak states. They established trade and diplomatic links, but they did not conquer or colonise a SINGLE petty kingdom. Now you compare this with the experience of the Europeans that followed a few years later with colonisation of the world. Why were the experiences of the two civilizations so different? Is it then fair to assume that the Chinese would act like a Western great power?

[@typicalKAMBlover21]

As a Chinese I have to say, your reply did exactly the opposite of what you intended to do. You want to prove Chinese exceptionalism, if China becomes big it won’t invade or push other countries around. But your argument did just the opposite. It proved John M’s argument: everyone thinks his country is special, self righteousness is part of human nature. Chinese exceptionalism is exactly the same as American exceptionalism. I am old enough to remember the peaceful rise of China being the center of our policy. I scratched my head in disbelief when I heard about the construction in South China Sea. John’s argument really makes sense. China and US relationship will deteriorate in foreseeable future.

[@sushilover5367]

@@typicalKAMBlover21 china has claimed sovereignty over scs since roc. u r equating china's defensive behavior with the western offensive colonialism behavior.

[@jakobson219]

@@sushilover5367 r u referring to china's "defensive behavior" in Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong? Or perhaps its defensive behavior toward the Uygurs? 😏

[@sushilover5367]

@@jakobson219 all territories of china, so whats ur point?

[@jakobson219]

@@sushilover5367 like Ukraine is a territory of Russia, right?

[@ollifrank6255]

Realism in international relations brings important contributions to understanding international politics. But its focus on rationality brings one aspect. When it comes to the big decisions, like war and peace, values about what is right or wrong, emotions, feelings of kinship play a key role. That was maybe less so, at the times of absolutist kings, but even then religious convictions were important. But since the major democratic revolutions, increasingly values became a key element. Looking at pure interests only, Britain should have supported the Confederates in the Civil War, but specially after the Emancipation declaration couldn't. Britains entrance in WWI had to do with balance of power etc, but also with the perception that Germany and the Habsburg Empire did wrong. America's entrance in WWI of cause had interests in mind, but also feelings of kinship with the English and French (the latter politically). Going more recently, the US pulling out of Vietnam, had also to do with a growing feeling in the US that at the end, if Vietnamese want to become communist, they should. Or invading Iraq because Sadam was an unscrupulous dictator

[@halvardwidere8084]

What makes prof. Mearsheimer so interesting that you could listen to him talk about his (repulsive) theory about international politics for hours and hours?

[@ollifrank6255]

Of the 5 assumptions, the fifth I disagree with. Just look at the history of the 20th century, three of the main protagonists in WWI did not survive and to great extent were aware of the risk in 1914.

[@billmichae]

John Mearsheimer does not know the difference between the theory and the hypothesis. Most of his arguments are fun to listen to.

[@jakobson219]

ur right i do get a good laugh listening to him.

[@ollifrank6255]

Interesting that he applies this thinking on China, but not on Russia. Why?

[@srantoniomatos]

He does. He just think russia is much weaker, not a competitor to us, and the us should use russia as an ally against china...like an friend state. An us is doing that. Thats because us wants putin out...but the us isnt going the friendly way, it wants to take over, and putin dosent bent over...so there this war (ukraine is just an object).

[@GH-oi2jf]

This talk just happens to be about China, not Russia.

[@srantoniomatos]

@@GH-oi2jf with russia on west side the west cant have ukrain, russia, iran and, and so, all south asia and midle east..., and, therefore, cant control the prices of commodities (most of all, the energy and minerals) that cant maintain the dolar as world currency (which alows for the printing of money without major consequencies)...and so, keep china contained on the east, alone... If the us allows russia as a partner to china, both dealing directly with iran, ukraine, pakistan, india, etc., the petrodolar ceases to exist...

[@calengr1]

52:31 CW simulations results: hard to start a war !....risks were better understood versus East China Sea miscalculations seem much more plausible

[@glensello4410]

Security trumps prosperity. Russia:👀

[@AlexLi8]

Beautiful theory professor Mearsheimer. But as the saying goes, when the assumptions are wrong, everything is wrong. No matter how logically beautiful it appears. Here is my counter view. 1. China is not a state per se. China is a civilization. You can conquer a state but you can not conquer a civilization. This was already evidently proved by China's Han dynasty and Qing dynasty. In both cases, China was conquered and ruled by the outside invaders, but in the end, China did not become like their invaders, but the invaders got dissolved in the Chinese civilization. In the end, the invader's cultures disappeared, but Chinese cultures remained and prospered. 2. To assume China will be like the US to pursue a regional hegemon is wrong. China never wanted and will not want to be a hegemon. China is big by birth and so as its economy grows it will be a big economy and that will influence countries around it. But the influence will be such that those countries will be attracted to China, and not forced by China. A live example, a few years ago when China approached Asean seeking to eliminate trade barriers between them, the ASEAN initially did not trust China and refused to come along. Seeing that, China did not use its size to twist the arms of the ASEAN countries, instead, China said OK let's start by we open up first to your export to China, you decide when you want to remove your trade barriers to Chinese imports. Of course, the ASEAN countries have no problem accepting that. After a while, the ASEAN countries become very comfortable with opening up trade with China, and now the relationship has expanded to more countries including Japan and Korea. It has now become The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP for short. 3, In the last 2000 years, China was the largest economy for about 1800 years, not by invading, or colonialism or trying to be a hegemon, but by making itself so great and it became a natural attraction of other parts of the world, hence we had the old silk road. Now China is rebuilding the silk road, called the Belt and Road Initiative. It is not invading any country but helping many countries to build their infrastructures so that their economy can be better integrated with the rest of the world. What they are doing matches what they are saying, to build the common human destiny. I think if Professor Mearsheimer can jump out of the box of zero-sum mentality and look at the history in a longer time frame, he will understand China more correctly.

[@Dawt_Calm]

Point 1 Mearsheimer defines "nationalism" very broadly. Should we pretend that nationalism has the same motivators in China as in the US or Russia? I think Mearsheimer often times takes the definition of US nationalism and applies that where it isn't appropriate, like China. You're correct, nation state doesn't translate very well onto China. 2.*To assume China will be like the US to pursue a regional hegemon is wrong.* This is related to the first point. Mearsheimer fundamentally misunderstands Chinese civilization. He's projecting the motivations of US liberal Hegemony onto China. But there are deep and fundamental differences within Chinese culture and thinking which refutes his assumption there. The most easily understood is the Great Wall of China. Where they built a defensive structure that can be seen from space. They're not wont to project power outward. Internally, yes. But not outward. And further on that. Mearsheimer not only projects his ideal of US nationalism onto Chinese civilization, he fears that they will do the same things Liberal hegemony has done in the west. Which is outward aggressive, attempting to force liberal democracy at the barrel of a gun across the planet. That's classical projection (The attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects) His fears about China, which is the basis of his strategy to "contain" China is based wholly on that projection, that China will do what liberal democracy has in the west. 3. Now I'm no expert on Asian economics and this seems a bit trite, but “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”. China's fundamental strategy seems to be to offer honey. As opposed to the west which has been trying to do that with oppression of ideas and foreign aggression. Honey seems like a more humanitarian/successful strategy to me. The Chinese conception is based on thesis + antithesis = synthesis of cultures/civilization. Where as the western conception is cultural domination, trying to force their conception of liberal democracy on the rest of the planet.

[@tellmemoreplease9231]

That is pretty much what I have read about the Chinese couture. Several times they had a powerful exploring navy. They visited the American continent at one point (so they have just discovered) and they didn't even leave home to take advantage of FREE land.

[@farqis]

​@@Dawt_Calm I totally agree with your comment. 1. Additionally, Russia has also begun to morph itself into this Chinese mold, which is evident from recent events in Ukraine. Whereas historically China and Russia did not have good relations, it has formed a strong bond with China and with their help was able to prepare well before time against US and EU sanctions. It immediately switched to UnionPay after Visa and MasterCard banned Russia, and switched to CIPS immediately upon SWIFT ban on Russia, thus turning the tables on US/EU by supporting the rising alternative financial system. 2. It has formed better relations with other countries that historically did not have good relations with Russia or were supposed to be in the US camp, e.g. Pakistan, Saudi-arabia and UAE. 3. In game theory, if there are 3 players in a game all playing against each other and rules are that the last surviving player wins, the best chance for one of the weaker players to win would be if the 2 weaker players gang-up on the strongest player and eliminate him. That is exactly what is happening now where a powerful block of many relatively weaker players (compared to strongest player) is now emerging against the strongest player (US). The block begins with Russia in Europe, and extends to Central Asia, China, Pakistan, Iran and down to Arab states (India is half in and half out right now, but will likely end up being in; see point 4.) 4. The bullying and strong-arm tactics by US against friends and foes alike, has disillusioned everyone regarding US's friendship and promises. Furthermore US has lost it's trust and credibility by ditching allies when they needed them most, after making promises of military support for decades. Ukraine case in point. India will see this very cautiously and with the recent beatings received at the hands of Chinese on LAC, they would be smart enough to realize that poking the Chinese bear in the eye at US's behest is not a good idea because US will for sure use India against China and then ditch them as they always do with their "friends"! So India will end up not being in US camp, and hence technically in the Chinese/Russian camp. 5. Chinese are good at the patient game-play. Under it's leadership, and with Russia, Iran, and Arab states producing the lion's share of world's oil/gas/energy, this new block will gradually move away from USD as reserve currency as well as ending the Petro-Dollar hegemony (Arabs, MBS, UAE are not happy with US). The move away from dependence on US/EU financial system has already begun as said above. As more states see the benefits of "honey", they will join in! 6. US forcing EU to hit Russia with sanctions has already started to impact EU economy (fuel / energy prices already through the roof!). Germany and France are already taking slightly different lines (partial SWIFT / banking channel ban only, increasing their defense spending, etc.) . If this continues, EU might gradually gravitate towards this new block over the next 10 years. Although above factors reduce the likelihood of a conflict, but the arrogance of the current generation of decision makers in US cannot possibly be over-estimated. China may still enter into a conflict, NOT by it's own choice, but by that of US. And there's a very good chance of that, although I hope that doesn't happen.

[@JKTProductionzIncNCo]

I just want to talk bout point 3. In the last 2K years you claimed "China" as we know it today (correct me if I'm wrong) has been the largest economy for 90% of the time. While this may be true. It is much harder to prove conclusively. I mean the various South Asian empires were also at time similar or greater in population size than East Asia over the centuries past. Considering the world economy was agrarian. This makes estimates difficult to confirm. Also up until around 700 to 800 AD there is some evidence to suggest the west asian population were somewhat comparable to south & east Asias. Its fairer to say "...based on various estimates South & East Asian dynasties have comprised 30% to 40% of combined world economic activity over the last 1K to 1.2K." It's still very impressive. Nonetheless its very hard to prove that some S.A. political entities or E.A. political entities managed to remain economically dominant for 1.8K succession after succession. I just picked this one issue b/c I see this point being argued by various S.A. & E.A. commentators under various economic videos on yt. Each side assuming economic dominance of the world in the past by their own people. Which may or may not be true to the various claims made the parties involved. Peace.

[@calengr1]

01:20:40 M rejects that the nuclear revolution transformed security competition between states.....

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Evrrything in Geopolitics changes weekly. Most comments on this thread are mostly irrelevant 8/21/22.

[@futures2247]

despite all our history it seems we are stuck in zero sum stupidity.

[@alinebaruchi1936]

Triangles Circles Squares Pentagons They hardly ever go to hexagons Too complex This is us

[@jameslenihan6812]

If survival is the ultimate goal of states then surely attempting to become a regional hegemon isn't the best way to go about this. Napoleonic France, Wilhelm the 2nds Germany, Nazi Germany Imperial Japan, and the USSR all attempted to become regional hegemons in their respective regions and it was this attempt to become hegemon that ultimately led to their downfall and destruction. If a states goal truly is about survival then why would they pursue a strategy which makes other states feel threatened and thus more likely to attack them?

[@jacoblau9355]

I'm actually of the belief that China's rise is peaceful but it won't be because neighbouring and faraway countries that will cause trouble. For example, what if countries start having Communist revolts? If China helps, its playing politics. If they don't help, they'll be crushed and then China accused of playing dodgy politics. Neighbouring country will begin to struggle under democratic governments or tyrants and if China steps in, its accused of colonialisms. If not, they would inevitably have trouble with immigrants or something like that.

[@jameslenihan6812]

What your describing here is what Mearsheimer alludes to in his seminal work the Tradegy of Great Power. Mearsheimer's opinion about the rise of China is bleak because his theory is based on the assumption that principle of anarchy creates a self-help system in which must rely upon themselves for their own security and survival. This in turn creates a climate of fear which when coupled with the inability of states to ascertain the intentions of other states, forces them to assume the worst and to compete for power with them. While you and others may view China's rise as peaceful, the US which wishes to maintain its position as the world's only regional hegemon (regional hegemony is the closest way to guarantee ones security) doesn't have the luxary of hoping a rising power (China) will have peaceful intentions. From the US’s perspective China’s actions in the South China Sea (SCS) and in the wider Asia-Pacific region are that of a revisionist hegemonic seeking state that is seeking to undermine the US’s position in the Asia-Pacific. Thus, the US views its actions as defensive and China’s offensive whereas the reserve is true from China’s perspective. Therefore, even though both may truly perceive their actions as defensive, that is not how it will look to the other. Because of this it is highly likely that both the US and China will become caught in a spiral of mistrust which when coupled with China increased military spending will lead to an intense security dilemma in which the US tries to contain China. It is this intense security dilemma that will reinforce the perception that the only way China can maximise its security is by pushing the US out of Southeast Asia and achieving regional hegemony. Thus, the possibility of conflict/war between the two will remain extremely high and an ever-present danger. This is the Tradegy of Great Powers as both states will be pulled into a conflict that neither truly wants. Ultimately, China may view it's rise as peaceful and it may very well desire to rise peacefully, but that's not how it will look to others. Once again this is the Tragedy of Great Powers and is based on the idea of anarchy, self help and the inability of states to ascertain the intentions of other states. While the Chinese people may be frustrated at Mearsheimer's analysis and feel like it is discriminating against China, the idea behind Mearsheimer's theory is that the US would work to contain any other rising that could potentially challenge them in the exact same manner. For example, the US, played a key role in preventing Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany and the USSR becoming regional hegemons in their respective areas and it will likely do the same when dealing with China. According to Mearsheimer's theory the US's mistrust of China isn't based on cultural or political differences but rather it centres on the desire for the US to maintain its position as the world's only regional hegemon.

[@jameslenihan6812]

Saying all this Mearsheimer's theory has a number of shortcomings and in my opinion defensive realism or neo-classical realism may be better tools to predict the rise of China and the US's response.

[@jacoblau9355]

​@@jameslenihan6812 I think I can agree with what you said. I think regardless of what path China took, the result would have likely been similar. Like if the Republic of China had won the civil war instead...China would be the biggest democracy in the world and in doing so would be seen as a threat. They would be seen as trying to play politics with its numbers by using it to control the UN, etc. And I think that would have resulted in China becoming worst off in other ways. Ultimately, the US moved first and thus wrote history. I think China took a chance and become revisionist then we have legit competition and can move society forward and not the politics. In that sense they made a sacrifice but in doing so those who are aware can make a choice.

[@jameslenihan6812]

@@jacoblau9355 Yeah I agree that if the Republic of China had of won the civil war the result would have been likely similar. A rising China no matter it's regime poses a threat to the US pre-eminent position in international affairs and it's is likely the US would have acted as an offshore balancer anyways. Although I should note that perhaps the Democratic Peace Theory may have came into play but I very much doubt China would have ever become a democracy (liberal democracy) in the Western sense so perhaps not. A problem I have with Mearsheimer's theory is that it doesn't distinguish between being a hegemon and bidding for hegemony. As I alluded to in my first post bidding for hegemony is one of the few things that historically appears to bring about the destruction of rising powers (see Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the USSR). If states are rational actors who prioritise survival above all else then bidding for hegemony may be a foolish enterprise. Defensive realism argues that states rather seek an "appropriate" amount of powers as they realise acquiring too much power will cause other states to join with one another and balance against them. Perhaps China only desires an appropriate amount of power and will become less assertive as it gets what it wants (Taiwan and control of the SCS). Of course Mearsheimer would argue that even if China's aims are limited the US won't know this and thus his theory will still apply. All in all both offensive and defense realism are useful tools to analysis international relations and either may be correct but it's just as likely both will be wrong. Only time will tell. Personally I think neo-classical realism which agrues that domestic political factors affect how states react to and perceive the anarchic international system may be a better explantory theory. Saying this, there is much debate as to whether it can be considered a proper theory of international relations as it incorporates so many variable's. All in all I think US-China tensions will be fraught in coming years. Conflict is never an inevitably but unfortunately I feel it is highly likely between the US and China. I hope I am wrong though.

[@derekfreud]

What he’s saying is, the US has done enough bad things to other countries that it’s afraid of karma coming to it one day.

[@xushenxin]

this assumptions are all true in the team I work for, so it is likely we kill each other in the office.

[@gangshan]

Chinese, after commuism failed in 70s, greatly admired or even adored U. S. and western European systems, believing they were fair and would let the excellence shine, unlike the extreme socialistic old China when they let the poorest or weakest people at the bottom to become bosses and managers, or let them have priority to go to top universities-all these policies were to reverse social tiers and end exploitation that old China believed bogged down those people and limited them. But these "unnatural" experiments failed;. their economy ran to ground. So since 80s all over China including officials all wanted to reform and open up to free enterprises and competition. That's when they were willing to be a follower of the West, thinking they were the best and fair judges; as long as they worked hard to produce affordable products that people around the world could buy, or as long as. scientist or engineers build good technological products that the world like, or athelets prove their excellence that would certainly lead to gold medals. But they were surprised twice. First time in 2008 when in U. S. the over-reaching Wall Street melt down, financial insolvency everywhere nationwide. China never experienced this stage of capitalism before, so many manufacturers simply froze production and waited. Their economic index temporarily dipped. Chinese government got scared and instead of waiting to see what next as Chinese finance at that time were actually quite sound, different from U. S., there central bank imitated U. S. and lent out way too much cheap credits to whoever needed, which created lot of waste and huge bubbles! (Now as bubbles bust now, they suffer again. ) Second time when China doubted Americans' all perfectness was when Trump came along starting denouncing them with all kinds of labels and allegations, which they knew either overblown or simply rumors and lies. Later Trump slapped huge tarriffs or bans on their products, and even accused Chinese scholars and scientists working for U. S. universities and companies as spying or stealing, (many turned out to be false). All these made China feel that American government broke their ideal and principles of fairness and pursuit of excellence they used to adore U. S.. for. Then Trump broke his last promise that he wouldn't meddle with Taiwan issue and their major election by secretly arming Taiwan. China at this point became in doubt of American integrity. Biden came along without reversing the trend. They are disillusioned with U. S..

[@chrisw5302]

I agree very much! The US are acting too much in a sanctimonious / canting way ... So other governments and crowds in nation states get disgusted ... So the US gamble away without distress their values ...

[@josegaucho2830]

sounds like we need to get rid of Nation States. One world, one people with regional differences, I would argue ;), is a more peaceful governance model.

[@calengr1]

45:28 Economic consequences deter war ....europe 1914 economics co existed with security dilemmas ......2020 decoupling between use and China

[@ritaalano7929]

Just to annoy you, don't you Americans say "Trust in God"? Chinese has a higher power, all through its 2,500 years of proven history, even today--- Tian --and we behave according to the rules of -- Tian(Sky) di(earth) liangxin(conscience). And we believe firmly that the world is round -- what goes up must come down.

[@imagitu6409]

assumption one is incorrect.

[@ruzzputin]

Given these assumptions, China must increase the size of their nuclear weapons arsenal from 283 to 5,000 (of which 1,500 in a ready to launch state) to match USA.

[@ericmiller254]

MAD doesn't require that. Only that retalition would functionally end the other nation. I'm not sure if China has the fire power to wipe out the US, but certainly the west coast. Which is unacceptable....obviously

[@zsarimaxim692]

285 is a huge assumption.

[@donaldjoseph3903]

US made a fatal assumption that helping China to be wealthy will make China a cooperative partner.. big mistake... big mistake..

[@zsarimaxim692]

@@donaldjoseph3903 Lol, no. US was betting on regime change via a growing Chinese middle class.

[@donaldjoseph3903]

@@zsarimaxim692 regime change would be nice.. but playing by the rules and keeping one's promise need not necessary entails a regime change...

[@murongyunhai]

I wish I can ask him, if the US play a decent role, i.e., that it behaves just as its liberal theories promise and that does not set some terrible examples of breaking the international rules, and, will things get better and will we have international peace? And why do powerful states like the US tend not to abide to their moral rhetoric and staying a good role model?

[@werimutamihana1901]

Ok I respect this Professor enormously however my humble opinion is that China will not imitate the US. As a civilization Chinas strength comes largely from it's homogeneity so it's not interested in expanding out of Asia. I believe China just wants the US out of there

[@juliesusan6464]

@KDP

[@dimatrue]

Dear professor Mearshimer, I would say your theory about how things could stack up in Asia would be correct if you were the President of the USA :) In other words if USA is a sane, reasonable force. Current developments are contrary to that. So, many players feel the need to isolate themselves from the USA. This doesn’t look good for the US, but the elites refuse to understand the reality. Too bad!!! I only hope that the nuclear war can be avoided. I want my kids to have a life and their kids too.

[@clovisra]

He is a light in the darkness.

[@Zxuma]

Is the professor making an argument for a global benevolent government?

[@GH-oi2jf]

no

[@calengr1]

Restraint 1:09:37 ....unipolar momemnt and liberal hegemony ....USA gets bogged down......restraint with China is totally different concept ; 1: 11:48 waning powers such as RU....."declining great power..."

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Sorry, this a repeat ... everything written, posted before in some form or another ... although, perhaps the second time in this configuration, and the first time in this form as one comment. 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 At a distance, it seems like Steve Chapman could get away with looking like John Mearsheimer. John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

I just post this elsewhere in combination ... 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 .... )

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

... and also in combination ... Also ... Belief in the separation of powers was a significant influence on the framers of the Constitution of the USA, and is attributed to the philosopher and jurist, Montesquieu (French) who had studied Locke (English), a philosopher who put forward the idea that government was formed by popular consent and not divine right. The framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. There is a close analogy between Australian Constitution Chapter III and Article III of the US Constitution: Judicial Independence, and, a general parallel, in the structure between the Australian Constitution Chapter II and Article II of the US Constitution: Executive power, and, the Australian 'Constitution Chapter I and Article I of the US Constitution: Legislative power, however, in Australia, there is a partial fusion or overlap of powers and the separation of powers is implied in the structure of the constitution. Also, when the Australian Constitution was drafted, was the influence of a Westminster-style system, and, the doctrine of responsible government was seen as the best protection of human rights more so than checks and balances and a bill of rights, and, so there is no bill or charter of rights. (Construed from various sources ... Society/University orations/public lectures, dictionaries, Australian Government websites e.t.c.) In addition, "some elements of the Canadian constitution were adopted ... ", and "The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, including those of Switzerland, Germany, and South Africa." "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention." (exhibitions senate gov au pogg origins drafting constitution website) exhibitions.senate.gov.au/pogg/origins/drafting_con.htm What sort of influence did the US have? ... What sort of influence does the US have? ... While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution ....

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Although, apparently, no one is going to read what I write.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

... then this pops up ... kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIOchWCsptebpck ... hehehe There should be a comment above ... then this pops up ... Nope ... disappeared again ... Ok ... I tried. You can find the comment in connection, on various other places.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

Yep ... like this guy.

[@bobfairchild]

Rule of Jungle? need to be invented?😁

[@windcloudor]

Will USA peacefully fall?

[@silversurfergw]

moonshiner

[@meregaming1770]

"Most Americans find this very hard to believe!" . . . no we don't. Get off your high horse lol.

[@jogobonito1234]

If the Chinese would sacrifice prosperity because of nationalism, John, then it's not survival but prestige and internal legitimacy that drives state behavior... 😉

[@zyc8198]

29:53 Being an avergae Chinese on the street, I'd say John is right. Just that we don't really think much about Japan, not any more at least. We only have USA, our great teacher, in our eyes.

[@junk7774]

Taiwan, we have to prevent China from unite Taiwan. And Taiwan doesn't need to have an opinion on their own fate, they simply can NEVER want to unite with Mainland. LOL

[@georgeriszko]

I understand that Taiwan has been under the rule of mainland China for only a short time in history. Four years I think but I could be wrong.

[@georgeriszko]

@@letsgobrandon4429 Thank you. What I read must have been was “mainland China was in control for 4 years in the 20th century” as it was under Japanese rule until 1945 and then independent of the mainland again after 1949。ie 4 of the last 127 years. Historically a short time I agree.

[@lynnjl6443]

You are wrong.