U.S. Presidential Election-The Clash of Great Powers: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Primacy

  Рет қаралды 100,719

The University of Chicago Hong Kong Campus

The University of Chicago Hong Kong Campus

2 жыл бұрын

Oct 15, 2020
U.S. Presidential Election Series
The Clash of Great Powers: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Primacy
In the third episode of our four-part U.S. Presidential Election Series, Professor John Mearsheimer discusses the rise of China as a global superpower and the escalating security competition between the U.S. and China. Mearsheimer begins by laying out his theory on international policy and regional hegemons; he describes the international political system as anarchic as opposed to hierarchal, and discusses the implication of the fact that one political state cannot be certain about another state’s intentions. Mearsheimer moves on to give a historical overview of U.S. foreign policy and then touches on the ramifications of a Trump or Biden presidency on U.S.-China relations. Finally, Mearsheimer addresses questions from audience members, including topics such as an Asian perspective on foreign policy, the inevitable escalation in tension between the U.S. and China and what factors might accelerate this escalation, and Trump’s strategy, or lack-there-of, regarding foreign relations. Finally, Mearsheimer considers the position of Hong Kong in U.S.-China relations within the context of his theories.
Professor John Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science,
University of Chicago
Read more about the event here: bit.ly/3duJXpp
Read more about the U.S. Presidential Election Series: bit.ly/32FWjau
➡ Subscribe to Yuen Campus Hong Kong Enews: bit.ly/3fxp8JP

Пікірлер: 379
Ying Liu
Ying Liu Жыл бұрын
I always wondered why America can't just mind it's own business and have to interfere with others affairs. This gives me some understanding why America always muddles around ...
Jerry Loo
Jerry Loo 8 ай бұрын
He should have advocated for multipolar world, which also could go along his lines of thought. You are the top on your world. Let’s others be the top on their corner. Maybe this is going to be the case from now onwards.
Linny H
Linny H 8 ай бұрын
Would you have wandered that in 1930s when Japan was invading China?
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
@Linny H If you had listened carefully it's exactly what he said; all imperial powers seek hegemony and ways to expand it, just like Japan did.
Steven Schmidt
Steven Schmidt Жыл бұрын
This guy is now my favorite geopolitical commentator. Great stuff!
Jah Way
Jah Way Жыл бұрын
This is one of my favorite talks done by Professor John Mearsheimer. I like John not only because his wisdom and brilliant arguments, but also the fact that he is openly talking loud about those grand strategies. His theory -- offensive realism consists 5 simple rules: 1) survival is the highest priority for states; 2) states don't have high confidence on others' intention; 3) states will act rationally; 4) international system is anarchical; 5) All states possess some offensive military capability. By driving those rules together, the outcomes are dark, cold and, like Professor Mearsheimer would say -- ruthless. In the long term, the current hegemony will try its best to eliminate all of its potential peer competitors in ruthless ways to secure its position, and that's what the US has been doing in the past century to mitigate the challenge from Imperial & Nazi Germany, Imperial & Nazi Japan etc. As China grows more powerful, John argues that China will follow the same logic to keep build up its military power, hence a military contest between the US and China is inevitable. From a regular folk's perspective, this theory upsets me in the following reasons: 1) this is really unfair because in this system, most of the human population will live a pathetic life to serve the hegemony in terms of both physically and mentally -- speaking of massive western main stream media brainwash. 2) the human will never unite together and conquer the outer space. There's always going to be an "us" and a "them". 3) the military contests are dangerous and could easily burn the whole humanity to dust. Even if China failed this time, but what about the next time? Even if nuclear weapons are not on the table, what about bio weapons? This is a prisoners' dilemma full of PURE MADNESS. My thoughts on breaking this dilemma: 1) The simple approach would be to change one of the principle rules -- can we create a non-anarchical international system? 2) To create a "them" outside of humanity so all human are "us" -- well, COVID19 should've proved this wrong. Lastly, thanks to the fact that Prof. John Mearsheimer is telling the theory loudly and I hope leaders can see through the logic and put the military measures on the bottom of the list. Hope peace and prosperity to the whole humanity. Btw, this offensive realism reminds me of the Dark Forest dilemma from Liu Cixin's Three Body Problem.
bztheman Жыл бұрын
Thank you, great comment!
lalngheta sailo
lalngheta sailo Жыл бұрын
KiatLeong Len
KiatLeong Len 11 ай бұрын
I disagree with John's choice of word, i.e., "survival". Great and powerful nations seek hegemony NOT because of "survival". It's mainly due to power, influence, coerce and bullying.
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
I read somewhere that all humans either are born Platonic or Aristotelian. Coming from Latin America I completely agree with Mearsheimer´s worldview since we have experienced it before everyone else in the world. Your desire to change human behaviour and make it less anarchical or in some way integrate 'us' as humans is not corroborated by world's human history; it sounds like a desire taken from some science fiction movie and it's just not going to happen. Maybe you better continue reading Liu Cixin and dreaming of an impossible future.
li haida
li haida 2 жыл бұрын
Professor John Mearsheimer has a great theory on the clash of superpowers in general, and I think he is making sense on almost everything. Except to me there are still some thoughts to elaborate about the status-quo: while it is certain that maintaining the status quo is foreseeably the only way to keep both countries out of a fight, the exact definition of the status quo around East Asia and whether or not the elite class in China and in the US share the same view on it might potentially be a game changer to the difficult situation ahead facing our nations. Should the status quo being the current balance of economic power between both countries then it is clearly unacceptable for the Chinese since that means about 1/6 per capita income on the Chinese side. It's simply unfair viewing from a humanitarian perspective and no one imo will accept such an disadvantage as status-quo. But should the status quo being China grow considerably in terms of both economic and military powers while utterly restrain itself from directly gaining territories and deliberately expell US influences from other countries, at the very least outside the range of its claimed territories as before the rise of China, and the US gets to keep most of its influence around world despite being perhaps the second most powerful nation in the world, I think there are still real chances for those two countries to come together without serious clashes and it might not be a zero sum game at all since both sides can win economically without seriously damaging the benifit of the other. Even wiith the same level of per capita income, I'm confident that the US can still be a beacon for the world with its values of freedom and liberal democracy, its superior cultural and technical innovations and so on.
under18fearless 2 жыл бұрын
The problem is the US think they must always be superior. Don’t underestimate the ability and tenacity of your rival.
F. OPE Жыл бұрын
You are being very optimistic. Would you trust your neighbor with the keys to your house?
rnbpl Жыл бұрын
That's what he means when he calls China a revisionist power, that it is clearly unhappy with the status quo and will try to change it (economy, Taiwan, South China Sea, Indian border, etc). That's why he makes the point that it will be easy to form a balancing coalition against China in Asia. Income per country is not a zero sum game but share of total power will always be a zero sum game
Pamella Ford
Pamella Ford 11 ай бұрын
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
You clearly did't get it. Maybe listening again?
Diego Osorio
Diego Osorio 2 жыл бұрын
Scholars of his caliber are a national treasure, unfortunately a dying breed it seems. Amazing to read how he's been ahead of the game for decades, challenging the status quo before the need for it was, and predicting the foolery of the liberal globalist order.
SoonTong Quah
SoonTong Quah 11 ай бұрын
Unfortunately for him he called out the Ukraine conflict more than six years ago. He blamed the US for provoking Russia, and for telling the truth he was ostracized from American think tanks and talk-circuit. Very few platforms were willing to host him. This is American freedom of speech - you have free speech as long as you don't show US in bad light, even if it is truthful.
david Жыл бұрын
Thanks to Prof Mearsheimer for providing us with the proper terminology for this discussion: regional hegemon; the trumping of prosperity by security; benign or malign intentions; roaming (my favorite); etc. But do these terms really help us? I think they do. At least intention, and discovering it, helps me and my cockamamie theory about the possible unseating of the only hegemon on Earth in the 21st century. By the teaming up of two incipient regional hegemons - of different regions. In the decades to come perhaps they'll come to blows, but now they are allied to rid the planet of its current and only regional hegemon, America. How was this achieved? By projecting false intentions, I argue. The intentions of Russia and China deceived everyone including America's powerful and unequaled Intel, the CIA. I refer to the Sino-Soviet conflict, a deception created by the two major communist states teaming up after WWII and Hiroshima, when they were most vulnerable to the desire of the anticommunist war mongers to rid the planet of them. They came together 60 years ago and now find themselves - by fate - in a position to shoot the moon. To break the bank. It is my contention these two states fought a phony war at the Amur in the Sixties with very real and sad casualties. A war which was a declaration that they hated each other and that it was unnecessary for America to worry about their alliance. A war which fooled everyone except me. /// Edit/// Of course, there is no proof for what I have just said. But I don't require any proof. I am a graduate of the 'Proof Is In The Pudding' School of history. If China ups the ante on Taiwan next week, the US and its allies would find themselves involved in a conflict on two fronts. Trying to put down a 'take over' of territory in Ukraine in East Europe and halt China's attempt to effect its claimed sovereignty over Formosa in East Asia.
Luke hua
Luke hua 2 жыл бұрын
The greatest soft power of a country is the ability to ensure happy living for its people
Yukio Mishima
Yukio Mishima 2 жыл бұрын
CCP Propaganda
Drakyry 2 жыл бұрын
@Yukio Mishima More like american propaganda, eh? This is literally the idea that killed the Soviet Union.
V 2 жыл бұрын
The US is doing a great job dividing it's own people and putting an end to the US experiment. The haves and the have nots. In 20 years there will be 2 United States:- 1. US of Wallstreet & 2. US of AR-15.
Fullmetal Alchemist
Fullmetal Alchemist 2 жыл бұрын
Also to have a hundreds of millions or billions of Happy people...
Crow Requiem
Crow Requiem 2 жыл бұрын
@Yukio Mishima so George Kennan, one of the greatest proponents of the containment strategy against the Soviet Union is doing CCP propaganda now? lol good to know how ppl can change their mind 6 feet under ya know?
Mission211 2 жыл бұрын
Great informative show. Thank you
mike Rusli
mike Rusli 2 жыл бұрын
Eye opening talk. Professor Mearsheimer's realist view of the world is sobering.
Didmasela 10 ай бұрын
Exactly. He helped develop International Relations theory of realism.
Jerry Loo
Jerry Loo 8 ай бұрын
Xi Jin ping said: the pacific is large enough for both countries.
Professor Mearsheimer knows the usa great power playbook so well, he sees it in every new power, let's hope that's not the case
U A Жыл бұрын
Thank you for your in depth analysis and views. Please share your vews as regional hegemons in addition to the four you mentioned the Great Britain and how it has lost her power. Will US have the smilar fate as but with somewhat diffrent reasons by wasting her might by alleniating so many allies and neglectng the basic needs of the US citizens.? American dream is unfortunately becoming American nightmare because of bullying the other states and going into terrible wars.
b.griffin317 Жыл бұрын
Mearsheimer agrees with you on the distraction of many recent pointless wars, but not on decline of US power.
connie kabasharira
connie kabasharira Жыл бұрын
Let's watch out for this one as well just like the chaos in Ukraine was predicted by Professor John
djhpsr900 Жыл бұрын
How can a 240 year old country tell a 4000 year old country what to do ?
Adalbert Thomalla
Adalbert Thomalla 11 ай бұрын
One point I am missing: the factor of the capital elite using the power of states to keep power and grow capital. Example: Capitalists holding shares to pharma or military companies and trying to influence policy of states to their benefit (creating pandemic to earn money from selling vaccinations, creating wars to sell weapons).
johnny tng
johnny tng Жыл бұрын
Americans said that they value freedom of choice and proud of their democracy ideology. But they all the times, imposed their will on other countries. Why don't you let China be China? Let them have the choice of deciding their political system.
ynocoolnamesleft 7 ай бұрын
Nothing to do with the lecture
Marwan Batrouni
Marwan Batrouni Жыл бұрын
Big salute to professor Mearsheimer, a bright and superb intellect. Unfortunately he was not involved in policy making in this country.
Ozsharpener Жыл бұрын
If he were, The US would lose western Europe rapidly and Germany will restore its traditional position over there. He has a very shallow understanding of geopolitics and out-of-date estimate of America's military capability.
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
@Ozsharpener We need a genius of your stature to enlighten us!
Ken law
Ken law Жыл бұрын
Japan's position on this will likely determine the outcome of the China-US competition in Asia. It can go either way.
b.griffin317 Жыл бұрын
I can't see a Sino-Japanese alliance for many, many reasons.
Jerry Loo
Jerry Loo 8 ай бұрын
@b.griffin317 On the contrary I believe Professor Meir.. ‘s realism tips the point. It’s on the Japanese to ding-dong siding the American or the chinese.
Art's Serious Channel
Art's Serious Channel 2 жыл бұрын
Mearshimer begins at 3:10.
Julie tao
Julie tao 10 ай бұрын
The realistic way of thinking of mainland Chinese people is particularly taught, emphasized and promoted by Chairman Mao, 实事求是,“seek truth from facts”, one of his greatest achievements as the teacher of modern Chinese people.
under18fearless 2 жыл бұрын
If we follow Dr.Mearsheimer argument there is no point negotiating as the stronger nation will use military power to maintain their position. This is human nature as he argued. There is no right or wrong the stronger is always right.
Hauntological Wittgensteinian
Hauntological Wittgensteinian 2 жыл бұрын
> Implying military conflict is inherently profitable You have no understanding of Johns theory at all
under18fearless 2 жыл бұрын
@Hauntological Wittgensteinian I did not imply war is profitable. The net result of war is never profitable. He is justifying US right to use military power to stay to be no 1.
Hauntological Wittgensteinian
Hauntological Wittgensteinian 2 жыл бұрын
@under18fearless hes ont justifying anything at all. Hes just saying that Great Powers will do anything to stay on top regardless if its China the US the British Russians Germans or anyone else. Again, youre just putting words in his mouth.
under18fearless 2 жыл бұрын
@Hauntological Wittgensteinian If this is the case we will never learn from history and continue to repeat the same mistake. The purpose of studying history is to learn from it. Maybe we will never learn as we still have Stone Age emotion as posit by E.O.Wilson.
SK Ng 10 ай бұрын
Taiwan, The Rukyu Islands, Diaoyutai and the small islands in South China Sea are heritaged from Chinese ancestors for over 1000 years and proven by historical maps and documents. How could we face our ancestors and our sons and grandsons when we go to Heaven if we lose any of these heritages?!
Sasha A
Sasha A Жыл бұрын
The problem is not a Security Issue, but an Existential Dilemma. We in the West are in trouble because China has created a Socialistic Model that puts the Western Liberal Democrarcy Narrative into question, if not irrelevance. They have lifted 800 million people out of proverty with their model, there is nothing we can say in the West except that we have done the opposite. We need to reflect and evolve if the Western system is to remain relevent. China is engaging Africa, the Middle East, SE Asia and Eastern Europe, even parts of South American. They are gaining grounds. This is an Existential Crisis for the US, Europe, and Quad.
John Roberts
John Roberts Жыл бұрын
1 billon have been lifted out of absolute poverty if you start counting from 1949 instead of 1980.
L V 2 жыл бұрын
President Xi had offered to President Obama not to militarize the south China sea but was declined by USA as they keep sending warships & planes along the coastline of China, spying & threaten China's security. China claimed sovereignty on those islands centuries ago, long before Admiral Cheng He's voyages to Africa in mid 1400s (Ming dynasty). An official map on China's territories which included these islands was published after 1912 when the Republic of China was formed & this was recognized by all the then governments of those countries around the south China sea inclusive the western colonial powers. Some countries around the south China sea were not even exist when china published the said official map. The colonized territories by western powers does not include these islands. When these countries obtained independence, most of them after WW2, they inherited the territories of their colonial masters, which does not include these islands. After WW2, USA had helped China to reclaim back some of these islands occupied by the Japanese imperial army. Pls get your facts right .
Broodkast8 2 жыл бұрын
It seems like you're making this a moral issue. Respectfully, it's not.
Carstin 2 жыл бұрын
"President Xi had offered to President Obama not to militarize the south China sea but was declined by USA...". That is utterly false. Xi promised not to militarize the South China Sea in September 2015: www.wsj.com/articles/china-completes-runway-on-artificial-island-in-south-china-sea-1443184818. That promise was not conditional on the US Navy not sailing through that Sea. It is crazy to assert otherwise. For the US government to have agreed to such a condition would have amounted to the US government agreeing that the South China Sea was NOT a free and open sea. That is to say, it would have amounted to the US government agreeing that the Sea was part of China's territorial waters.
chunchuan lv
chunchuan lv 2 жыл бұрын
@Carstin Let's be very hones here. At the time, that's a state visit. They are really trying to work together. Xi even negotiated with Bill Gates about exporting his new nuclear power plant technology to China. Then, we know how things unrolled..... btw, when the officials promise something, it's usually conditioned, but the conditions will not be made public (otherwise, why you made a pledge to constrain yourself?). This nuance is not limited to the Chinese. During the Cuba crisis, American did pull out missiles from Turkey in exchange for USSR withdrawal. This is not made public until much later.
John Charles
John Charles 2 жыл бұрын
That's not the point, there is an intense security competition due to the structure of the international system, you can make stories up all day about the South China sea, its not gonna matter whether there is an old map of not
John Roberts
John Roberts Жыл бұрын
@Carstin It was implicit!
eymeera osaka
eymeera osaka 2 жыл бұрын
Prof Mearsheimer is one of my favorite speakers and I always enjoy listening to his views and especially his frankness. But like most American political scientists, he sees the world through the lens of American exceptionalism. To him, the US and Western Imperialist Model is infallible, the so called gold standard and that China will inevitably follow the same path if it becomes a world power. This is in spite of the fact that historically China has never had any imperialist ambitions. China was already a world power during the Roman times but unlike the later, China did not set out to conquer the world. Nevertheless, he could be right but does it mean, he cannot be wrong? On the one hand, he admitted that the US is not a benign hegemon and on the other, he view China's increasing military capabilities as irrefutable evidence it will not rise peacefully? Isn't it obvious that since the US is not a benign hegemon, all rising powers would naturally respond to the former's threat by increasing their military capabilities? Without any doubt, Prof Mearsheimer is a strong advocate of US Containment Policy but I am just wondering whether it has ever occur to him that the US may lose this battle against China in spite of its past successes against Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union? Or is it possible that in future the world will no longer be controlled by a sole hegemon but rather, a few regional hegemons like Germany/France in Europe; Russia in Western Europe, US in North and South America, China is South East Asia, India in the Indian Ocean and Turkey/Iran in the Middle East?
Dudebro184 2 жыл бұрын
His theory is structual. He doesn't care about the inherent qualities of any nations apart from their economic and military power + geographical location.
WK 2 жыл бұрын
How can America hope to contain China when they can't even contain Huawei and that is even after using the full might of America to try destroy Huawei.
eymeera osaka
eymeera osaka 2 жыл бұрын
@WK By military force if all else fail...It thinks it can easy defeat China in a limited battle in the SCS or Taiwan Straits..
Pronewbie 2 жыл бұрын
I've learnt to appreciate his lectures in recent days. I agree with a lot of what you've shared except in his lectures I don't recall him explicitly saying that the US will win, but he has been relatively accurately over the past years in predicting the US's moves thus far (containment, Australia's alignment and actions)
King Fisher
King Fisher Жыл бұрын
No stability can exist among hegemons. We always grow an appetite for more.
nadiezdha17 8 ай бұрын
Take a shot every time Prof. Mearsheimer says "regional hegemon".
Howard Marriott
Howard Marriott 10 ай бұрын
I would love to hear John's thoughts on John Dalio's predictions in his thesis 'The Rise and Fall of Empires', kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpjYkqBmibCArZo where he predicts the US Empire is now in decline China is on the rise due to economic constraints. Will John consider this to be the sleeping giant that will be the downfall of the US Empire and in time the US goes the same way as Greece, Rome and more recently Dutch and British Empires.
Namuchat Жыл бұрын
With Napoleon looking over one's shoulder, what can possibly go wrong?!
Massoud Rajae moghadam
Massoud Rajae moghadam 11 ай бұрын
Very interesting lecture 🇮🇷🇮🇷🇮🇷🇮🇷🇮🇷🇮🇷🇮🇷
shui fong ku
shui fong ku Жыл бұрын
World peace is unlikely if such an influential man as JM does not subscribe to the moral of do to others what you would have them done unto you.
Gregory Thompson
Gregory Thompson Жыл бұрын
World peace is not possible. Mearsheimer is an academic and a commentator, he is knowledgable and realistic. Hence the brutal truths he speaks.
Mary Ann M Sebastian
Mary Ann M Sebastian 7 ай бұрын
Thanks so much today to all people and friends writeng pagkakatao iyong for gaano puso tunay totoo Diyos this evening blessings you family 🙏🕌❤️ pag-ibig everyone loveth those everything good all country
Ozsharpener Жыл бұрын
Although he is over honest, his extreme emphasis on competition of international security is a great distraction to fixing the real problem America is facing.
Maya Kuduwudu
Maya Kuduwudu Жыл бұрын
Which is ..?
Ozsharpener Жыл бұрын
@Maya Kuduwudu Wealth redistribution
Maya Kuduwudu
Maya Kuduwudu Жыл бұрын
@Ozsharpener oh, got you! That's domestic though. Nevertheless, a gross unfairness to the all classes and layers of society except one, the super rich. I saw the graph where it's shown how wealth is distributed -- pretty disturbing.
Phronesein Aeon
Phronesein Aeon Жыл бұрын
He talks about in other places. In a conversation with Ikenberry on youtube he mentions the effects of globalization as making wealthy people wealthier and poor ones even poorer. Also, I think in a video of his on Neorealism, he mentions he voted for Bernie Sanders. Not that he believes in the possibility of socialism or smth like that - which he doesn't - but as a way to balance things a bit and reduce inequality.
Cesar Miguel Pimentel
Cesar Miguel Pimentel Жыл бұрын
Great to listen to someone so unbiased and objective!!
Variant of Concern
Variant of Concern Жыл бұрын
14:14 that is a quote by Bismarck about the USA.
melf Жыл бұрын
He is literally just short of shouting out "Pick a war with China NOW!" Because he argues that time is on China's side. The longer you wait, the relatively weaker you get. Unless you can figure out a way to slow down, or been better, to roll back China's economic growth. Many people would say that he did not consider the danger of a nuclear war to the world, but heck, he has live a long enough life and he does not give a shit. To him, living in a world that the US is not running is as bad as death if not worse.
Luther Blissett
Luther Blissett Жыл бұрын
He's been asked that question directly before (Should we start a war with China now?) and he's said it would be a disaster to start a war with China. He's actually very anti war.
melf Жыл бұрын
@Luther Blissett Any sensible person would agree that a war at that scale has to be disastrous. He is not anti-war per se, he is just being realistic.
Luther Blissett
Luther Blissett Жыл бұрын
@melf What I'm trying to say is he usually falls on the side of opposing military action, and appreciates the gravity of war. By the bloodthirsty standards of the US elite it is quite notable.
Zhou Bai Dinh
Zhou Bai Dinh 2 жыл бұрын
I like the professor, but his theory, straight out of Morganthau's realist school has so many holes in it and failed to take into account of nukes and how it changes the equation...
Guenther Michaels
Guenther Michaels Жыл бұрын
Yes, you have earned 2 social credit points from Xi Jinping..
Steven Webb Jr
Steven Webb Jr 2 жыл бұрын
You actually need to go back to Kissinger and their goal was to create a power that rivaled the US in order to ensure that the US didn't become a global imperial power.
Long Đào
Long Đào Жыл бұрын
The video sound is pretty good, beyond my imagination
Given Zhou
Given Zhou 7 ай бұрын
Well Today China and Russia, signed a Relationship of no limits
marvin e crenshaw
marvin e crenshaw 8 ай бұрын
Excellent! Excellent!
Vic toews
Vic toews Жыл бұрын
How do you demilitarize the south China Sea? You remove the occupying force, send America home. The other 3 flashpoints won't be flashpoints if America goes home.
AA D Жыл бұрын
Exactly. Leave all the other countries alone instead of creating conflicts to sell weapons
Victor Ashkenazy
Victor Ashkenazy Жыл бұрын
China growth is due the high weight of US taxes and very optimistic assumption that China will be not more a Communist country.
John S.
John S. 6 ай бұрын
What would China do if we established a nuclear umbrella over Taiwan? I'd guess their blood pressure would be a problem, but what else?
Jack 11 ай бұрын
This aged like milk.
Mr terry seow
Mr terry seow Жыл бұрын
Sirr Charles
Sirr Charles 10 ай бұрын
No body argues that they don't it's an objective analysis
Peter Tang
Peter Tang Жыл бұрын
Ysnh Жыл бұрын
John threatened Australians to stand aside with US, or Australia would be the enemy of US. He never thought of backfires. He and US government just never had an opponent like China who stand on its ground. John should realize by now that this world is not US play ground and show respect to others
Luther Blissett
Luther Blissett Жыл бұрын
Hahaha you don't even understand what Mearsheimer said do you?
Gregory Thompson
Gregory Thompson Жыл бұрын
​@Luther Blissett No he doesn't. I watched that particular interview very carefully. Mearsheimer spoke the brutal truth. It is simply the fact that Australian mining and energy companies cannot continue to do business with China and expect the US to rescue Australia in the event of war.
Jerry Loo
Jerry Loo 8 ай бұрын
@Gregory Thompson Australia at war with who? It’s almost in an unnoticeable corner.
JayceeThree Жыл бұрын
Drink everytime he says "regional hegemon"
Gareth L
Gareth L Жыл бұрын
I would worry if US policy makers follow his advice to defend American primacy. If the first duty of government is to improve the standard of living and quality of life of its citizens, then Mearsheimer's priorities for government are misdirected. He is focused on maintaining America's global hegemonic primacy, when it can ill-afford to do so at this time. 50% of Americans have not experienced an improvement in their standard of living in the last 30 years, that why you have the "rust belt". The economies of many states in the Mid-west have been hollowed out and middle America is struggling. American infrastructure is crumbling, its healthcare system is expensive and failing, and even though America has some of the best universities in the world, they serve only a small elite.... On the whole, its education system is not preparing the vast majority of the next generation to be future-ready in the STEM subjects. America is also dealing with burgeoning gun violence, culture war against each other, crime, racism, opioid addiction, etc. The American government needs to restore the vitality of the American people before it goes around the world defending its primacy.
Philip Sagalla
Philip Sagalla Жыл бұрын
You seem to be saying that the US is rotten from within and it's military might is going to be weakened over time as to be effected by domestic issues. Well, this will be the responsibility of leadership.
kwokho luk
kwokho luk 8 ай бұрын
well said !
Rene Watterson
Rene Watterson Жыл бұрын
Lol. The next talk’s name is “burning the house down”…. What a great prediction of Jan 6
Rossi the Rhodie
Rossi the Rhodie Жыл бұрын
This chat was before Russia invaded on 24th Feb. (My now unforgetable birthday) Your regular updates would be welcomed. So its happening and poor Ukrainians are suffering, their Presidents being a Marter and fighting back. I really think Putin will take Ukraine even though weapons are now flowing in from all over. So far he's hit strategic positions and NOT taken an offensive role against the civillians. The UK/US and other Nato countries giving arms to Ukraine is fueling the fire and Putin will wreck the Ukraine. Maybe Putins allies in South America should start talking about setting up Russian bases in Cuba again. This may well get heads turning to own threats on the US and thereby be more keen to talk on creating the buffer zone and Both supporting and rebuilding Ukraine again and stop the shit before some idiot pops the red button. It would be great if you and your russian counterparts with such knowledge and answers could be brought in to mediate the situation for the peace of mankind. Both Russia and the USA are Bullies and the only way to deal with Bullies is expel them until they come to their senses. The other NATO coutries are mere puppets in the equation with the exception of China. It would be useless to bring in so called fundies from NATO countries because Bullies wont listern to them and the generals all talk war talk. China may be just the place for a round table mediation and discussion table where everyone is assured of their security. May God Protect all civillians and give the other leaders the wisdom to find peace for the sake of mankind. Please God dont let them destroy your perfectly build Earth.
Adalbert Thomalla
Adalbert Thomalla 11 ай бұрын
Why isnt he analyzing the reality of Black Rock and the power of non State organizations or elite individuals which try to use state power in their directions?
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
He does't need to, it already fits in his geopolitical theory.
JOOPPOOJ K 24 күн бұрын
It’s more like US’s Fall and the Challenge to China Primacy
Кисленко Ростислав
Кисленко Ростислав 2 жыл бұрын
You are turning blind eye on Putin's model of multi-polar world - where all countires are protected by international law system - the system US is actively trying to dismantle. This model provides better security and stability and allows international companies to do long-term investments everywhere on the globe - this is even economically beneficial. But China and many other countires actually support Putin's model.
Pronewbie 2 жыл бұрын
China clearly does. The game-changer to this US-China war is if The US is willing to discard its European allies and allow Russia to be the superpower in Europe for its own advances in Asia and North America. Europe is in a decline and honestly not much of use to the US anyway.
Alexandra V
Alexandra V Жыл бұрын
Они слепы, потому что лицемерны в этом. Профессор говорит, что США не хотят позволить появляться другим региональным гегемонам, т.к. это угрожает безопасности США. Каким боком? Это не про безопасность США, а про то, что тогда будут ущемлены их бизнес интересны. It's all about money! Тайвань тот же им нужен исключительно как "ферма производственная". Зато орут о защите прав) правда за скобками остаётся, что дело в правах самих бизнесменов американских делать деньги чужими руками далеко от собственной страны.
Alexandra V
Alexandra V Жыл бұрын
Кстати он также озвучил, что по-хорошему, задача Америки должна быть, стравить Россию и Китай. Демократичненько)
marvin e crenshaw
marvin e crenshaw 8 ай бұрын
In 1978 I was in China and Chinese didn't mince any words that in the 21st century, China would be worlds super power
Goedelite Kurt
Goedelite Kurt Жыл бұрын
"The challenge to US primacy"! First, what is meant by US primacy? The US, in its own self-presentation, states that the US intends to make the world safe for liberal democracy. If so, we may assume that the US considers itself an example of liberal democracy. Democracy is taken to mean, at the least, government by consent of the governed through a system of elections in which all citizens with an equal voice choose those who will govern them from any among themselves and may dismiss them from time to time and replace them with others. I don't believe that this is a reasonable description of US elections. Next, what is meant by "liberal"? I believe liberal hers refers to a Lockian condition on the political economy: that the governing authority does not control the activities marketplace for goods and services through the granting of licenses for such activities or by other regulatory means. In this second case, it may appear that the US comes closer than in the first to meeting this requirement. Regulation of the marketplace and its participants in the US are very weak, limited usually to the least requirements of preserving human life and health. Often, as with drinking water in Flint, Michigan, even such minimal regulation has been fictitious. The liberal condition is systematic when the government's control, by legislation of the activities of the marketplace is not really paramount because the legislators lack the independence to control. They are chosen, elected, by means of a system that is dominated by the principal actors in the marketplace. The US is not a liberal democracy for which it wishes to world to be safe, and US primacy is not at all related to such effort. So, again, what is US primacy? From the arguments in the preceding paragraphs, the US acts to serve the interests of the principal actors of its marketplace at home. That is also what motivates the actions of the US worldwide. Those principals direct US foreign and military policy, and it is their interests that China's rise is perceived to challenge. The leaders of the US see China as standing in the way of the US in advancing their market activities, globally. This has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with liberal government, which may be said is no government at all in the sense of democracy.
John Roberts
John Roberts Жыл бұрын
Democracy and capitalism should never be spoken of in the same breath; democratic (liberal) capitalism is an oxymoron.
Simon Davies
Simon Davies Жыл бұрын
I think Prof. already agreed on your point.Not about democracy just hegemony.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift)
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift) Жыл бұрын
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/the region? I don't know. Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift)
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift) Жыл бұрын
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
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift)
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift) Жыл бұрын
Questions: if a system of governance is a true dictatorship (not authoritarian) then is it not a system where governance is taken over by a person, without being elected? In that circumstance, how come that governance is defined or limited to a person from within that system? Does it make a difference, in that circumstance where that person is from or came from? If by definition it is a dictatorship, theoretically/ ethically/morally, would it be unacceptable for another country to openly choose a person or group of people for that system where governance is taken over by a person, without being elected, in doing that same thing, initially, to govern? Would that be a regime change? Is it not following the rules of that regime, that same regime? After that though, the governance taken over and ... those in governance, in a position to govern ... and govern, (hopefully, more so democratically than not)? It seems like a dictatorship could be taken over by any dictator and things could go from bad to worse, on the other hand, with checks and balance and transparency, a dictatorship could be taken over, and at that point transition into a different form of governance? Would it be a case of taking out what seems like a hell on earth situation, and or, a path leading to hell with best intentions, or neither, or something else altogether?
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift)
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift) Жыл бұрын
Asking for a friend, there wouldn't happen to be someone already taken by someone who is not Mearsheimer, and, who knows a Mearsheimer who is not taken? You know: single, not married, handsome, reasoned, intelligent, funny, lovely, expressive, smiling, doveish disposition, e.t.c.?
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift)
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift) Жыл бұрын
Sorry, John Mearsheimer still seems gorgeous.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift)
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski (EllieAdrift) Жыл бұрын
0:59 min ... "expand" ... "not one inch eastward" ? ... what if 'east' meant: a communist country and those countries are no longer communist; or, at dawn, rise, as a country or state is initially forming; or, the orient (East Asia), or Ural Mountains rather than Carpathian Mountains, Balkan Peninsula or Northern European plain that goes up to Russia; or, to align, pitch, directly east or as if like what is perceived to be the east; or, without first being asked; or, not in a church, and or where an altar or high altar is?, and or, e.t.c. ... ? ... an inch? one mile on the ground; or a twelfth of a foot or something; or a concession; or a small area of highland; and or, e.t.c. ... ? ... ward? an administrative division of a city or borough; or grounds of a castle; or, ... eastward? direction of the east; and or e.t.c. ... ? ... one? the same; or, In agreement; and or e.t.c. ... ? ... expand? recede from; or develop; and or, e.t.c. ... ? ... not? nought; or, zero or one (binary); and or e.t.c. ... ? Is it an agreement or a promise? rather than subjectively think what was said and done, objectively, what was said and done? Also what was written somewhere, in some notes or memoranda or accord something ? ... which river? Oder, Ural, Emba, Elbe? One could go to town on that, hey. 0:59 min ... "NATO" ... "would not expand beyond the reunification of Germany"? ... hang on ... how far did they think the reunification was going to go? .... oh dear ... "Why is Russia Angry,post cold world | Stephen Walt Explains" (International Relations & Politics) 0:34 min ... "the United States foisted the decision to include Ukraine and Georgia on the Europeans, especially the Germans and the French so we were deeply committed in 2008 ... " 0:29 min ... "we were going eastward, "we" means the United States." "John Mearsheimer analysis on Ukraine Western Lies" (International Relations & Politics) 1:34 min .... "almost". How come they can't all sit down and say, things have got out of control, let's start again, let's start from here, in theory, put aside agreements which aren't actually working, and say, yes "we" had agreements and things aren't working, times have changed, so rather than waste time trying to force things to stick and stay stuck, what do "we", as in all sides, need to do for where the world is now, what agreement do "we" need to make, now? It looks like Ukraine could have a leading role in world events, if Ukraine in part exists or in the alternative, it seems like a whole might end up a hole, Ukraine might become Ukraine in name only, and not really run by Ukraine. If China is an issue for the US, on a different continent, with an ocean in between, then, it sure as something looks like it would be an issue for those on the same land mass. If it's an issue for EU or Russia then, it will be an issue for Ukraine, regardless of the land area. (I'm curious, I have no idea the sentiment in the area: would Lviv, if given a choice, want to stay as part of Ukraine or become part of Poland? If Poland presented, by Lviv, with the option, would Poland want Lviv to be a city in Poland or not?) Also, if, for arguments sake, a requirement to join NATO, is an administration which is elected and NATO won't expand into an area where elections are held, an administrative division of a city or borough, then, by holding elections, it looks like Russia has given those parts of Ukraine an option to choose, or not, at a later date, to join NATO, rather than in the now, be subsumed? ... and ... for that matter ... how come those areas of the Donbas, are not or won't be recognised as separate? Where does it say that they have to belong to Ukraine or Russia or even be a country or a state? Donbas couldn't be recognised as a territory or a district or a reserve, not unlike D.C or an Indian tribal reserve? "What were our Options? John Mearsheimer, A Realist Take" (International Relations & Politics)
Al Cheung
Al Cheung 3 ай бұрын
This must be the worst argument from anyone!
Chateau 9 ай бұрын
He is clearly obsolete as the Imperial Overstretch is increasingly obvious to all in Asia who see their future economy and future prosperity.
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
I suggest you watch again, maybe you'll get it this time.
SK Ng 10 ай бұрын
Everything just happened by chance passively. It is not China's plots nor intention. China just want to follow an emperor's way, not a hegemon's way. Hegemon is a bit evil. 1. when the US declare wars to China, it is very natural for China to prepare for wars. 2. By Chinese ancestors' heritaged wisdom, even in peaceful time, leaders must always prepare military power and stock up necessities for for wars. This is also reflected in Chinese people's high saving habit. This is a tradition, not an ambition. The USA is afraid of Chinese tradition. 3. China expanded its economic power because it has excessive production power during recession. We must keep people work and live so send people aboard. That's also a tradition. That's why you see so many Chinese-blood settled in S. E. Asia since ancient time. 3. the belt and road is merely Chinese version Marshall Plan to find and secure resources and build new markets. It is soley for economic purpose. You see Chinese all over the world seldom get involved in politics, most of them are engaged in science, academic or business. However if the USA intend to, China can turn economic power / facilities into rivary purposes anytime.
Sean Mong
Sean Mong 2 жыл бұрын
Prof Mearsheimer, though a respected IR and Neorealist (structural) scholar, is nonetheless part of the US foreign policy establishment and some of his views (perhaps off the cuff) are biased and reflect a lack of deeper understanding of Asia. His views are a good reflection of US establishment thinking. My humble view re how Sino-US relations could be viewed and bilateral tensions could be understood by the rest of us. Militarily, US is still the sole Hegemon and thus we still live in a unipolar world in security terms. China is indeed foolish to fight a “hot war” with US now. Economically, China will reach parity with the US in the next few decades and US trade war is indeed an attempt to derail China’s path towards parity with the US. Money engenders a stronger military and better technology. Where are the key battlegrounds militarily and economically? 1) Europe. EU will likely bandwagon with US militarily but will still look to China for trade. Eastern Europe (predominantly new EU members and former Warsaw bloc nations) will be more ambivalent towards the EU, and thereof the US, with the notable exception of Ukraine (to Russia’s chagrin). For China to succeed, Eastern European nations’ traditional wariness towards Russia must be managed with a coordinated approach with the Russian Federation to reduce these countries security dilemmas and weaken the lure of NATO (the next logical platform for US to lead a overtly anti-China and anti-Russia military alliance. The attitude of Germany is the key to understanding whether NATO or EU will follow China’s lead. 2) Southeast Asia. Countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand,will be arrayed by China against Singapore, Philippines, and Indonesia. Malaysia’s position towards the US and China depends on the incumbent political party. Efforts to lessen Indonesian and Filipino’s resistance towards Chinese foreign policy goals are already underway. Singapore’s role is overly exaggerated, though it remains a key cornerstone of any US foreign policy objectives in ASEAN because it is seen as a consistent ally. US will continue to coerce ASEAN to include more active Indian, Japan and South Korean participation to counter China’s influence in ASEAN, though ASEAN members are wary to accept greater Indian influence due to historical reasons. Vietnam will likely play off the US and China against China for its own selfish interests, much more than other ASEAN members. 3) South Asia. Indian-dominated SAARC has already been weaken by Chinese investments and diplomacy in the past decade. Indo-Pakistan tensions will become a proxy for Sino-US tensions and competition in this region. While the US will strive to win over its former ally Pakistan, the War on Terror and recent Chinese military and economic assistance have cemented Pakistani relationship with China, especially when it faces an existential threat from a jingoistic and racist Modi government in India. Sino-Indian border conflicts and economic competition are expected to intensified, especially if the Biden administration foolishly give Modi carte blanche to distract (and contain) China from other areas of strategic competition with the US. India under Modi has also alienated another Muslim majority country - Bangladesh - at a time when Chinese trade and investments in the region have grown exponentially, even before BRI. US’s renewed interest in Xinjiang can be best explained as an attempt to sour China’s relationship with the Muslim World and foment internal unrest, although US’s track record of regime change in Muslim-majority countries and its War on Terror has significantly undercut this attempt, especially in this region. 4) Middle-East. China’s good relations with Israel will be tested under pressure by the US, while China will try to stay away from Saudi-Iranian competition in this region. There are a lot of potential for diplomatic and strategic breakthroughs by both China and the US, if China bravely breaks with its diplomatic tradition and steps in successfully as an honest broker in the Saudi-Iranian relations and if the US cultivates closer relationship with Iran to close any window for greater Chinese influence in this volatile region. 5) Africa. US will enlist the assistance of its major EU allies to reassert influence in respective former colonies to counter China’s mighty investment and trade carrots, although a new breed of African leaders like Ghana’s Mr. Akufo-Addo will seek a ‘middle’ path forward amid great power competition to wean Africa from a cycle of dependency and failures. Western democratic norms will not be fully embraced because the success of Chinese state capitalism is extremely attractive to the more pragmatic African leaders, though wariness towards China’s possible neocolonialistic intentions remains. 6) South and Latin America. China will try to score a diplomatic coup in America’s backyard by forging closer ties in this region to ‘break’ the Monroe doctrine. If that happens, the US has only has itself to blame given its dubious reputation and outright aggressive behaviour in this region to preserve Monroe and its hegemony (e.g., Nixon and Kissinger’s successful coup d’état against democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende of Chile, which ushered in 17 years of military dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet). I am not part of any foreign policy establishment of any country. I am bilingual in English and Chinese and I try my best to review primary sources, where possible, to make informed opinions. Views expressed above are my own.
Siddharth Kalantri
Siddharth Kalantri 2 жыл бұрын
Sean Mong 1 , why do u think india and bangladesh relationship in problem I think it had never been good like this before .
Gilgasch 2 жыл бұрын
@Siddharth Kalantri Bangladesh's relationship with India has been problematic due to India's treatment of refugee workers from Bangladesh, among other things.
happyhappynuts Жыл бұрын
The reason other countries are concerned is that China sees military control of South China Sea and basically all Islands near to China as essential to keeping US out. For certainty of control, the want to occupy this territory which is a critical point. Ideally, US could agree to withdraw, China would agree not to capture territory and then could spend money on healthcare and education. All could be happy ever after. But that won't happen, so we are in for pain.
Sean Mong
Sean Mong Жыл бұрын
@happyhappynuts China’s “Monroe doctrine” is to defend the outlying islands along its southern and eastern coasts because this is the route that most invasions of the Chinese mainland have taken place in the past 300 years (opium wars against the British and the French, Boxer Rebellion, Sino-Japanese wars etc.). This is China’s primary security concern. If the US and other powers do not understand or respect this, I am afraid we will be heading into a period of prolonged confrontation between China and the West. The only difference is: the West needs China more than China needs the West...
Jesus Tirados
Jesus Tirados Жыл бұрын
Immediately help Ukraine and Ukrainian people with food, water and other basic necessities and protection.
ruyaal 7 ай бұрын
Ukraine found raising site is somewhere else!
Yoo wah' Yaa Naash' toh'
Yoo wah' Yaa Naash' toh' 11 ай бұрын
64 dollars question is why don't we just leave other nations and concentrate on our business. We builded china to bump heads with them.
60 Yo Self-Taught 🎹
60 Yo Self-Taught 🎹 2 жыл бұрын
What if China and Russia also adopt your theory and want to be a hegemon ? Obviously, your theory is only applicable to US. Hence not a theory in usual sense, but only irrational worries US strategies may have been based on. The key is now to stop worrying (one of the common mental problems human have unfortunately ) Why not have some empathy and fairness. Don't treat other states the way you want them to treat you. Amplifying fear may have motivation coming from the arms industry. Confucianism is very different from, if not opposite to, the American exceptionalism.
Anthony St. John
Anthony St. John 10 ай бұрын
Professor M is an American-made smoke grenade...ASJ
Ivan Lozowy
Ivan Lozowy Жыл бұрын
Professor Mearsheimer, you should apologize for being so completely wrong about the situation in Ukraine, in particular in your lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" This is if you are brave enough to be intellectually honest. Just one quote of yours from that lecture: "The Russians didn't invade the Crimea"!? -- this statement is ludicrously and absolutely wrong, as is completely apparent today.
Philip Butler
Philip Butler Жыл бұрын
What? In that lecture, he says that "the Russians didn't invade Crimea, because they were already there". He meant that the troops were already there, because Russia rented naval bases there. Why should he apologise for anything? He is making an analysis of power politics based on Realist theory. This is not a moral issue.
Ivan Lozowy
Ivan Lozowy Жыл бұрын
@Philip Butler Yes, of course, Russian troops were already there and they were confined to their bases according to the international agreement covering their status. Thus, when they left their bases, they *invaded Ukraine*. That's a simple fact. Easy to check and Mearsheimer should have known this. That he did not is simply one more proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about in that lecture. He should apologize because of the grave error he made in not blaming Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, in fact, denying that there was any invasion. This is a simple, incontrovertible fact, obvious even in 2015 to anyone who looked with any care at the situation and that Mearsheimer was so wrong is the reason he should apologize. That's a simple matter of intellectual honesty, admitting you were wrong. That he has not done this has decimated my opinion of him. An analysis that includes blatant untruths is, at minimum, highly suspect and he should apologize not for his analysis (though it's difficult to conceive how he could retain his analytical stance given that he was completely wrong on the facts), he should apologize for not taking minimum care in checking the facts, for getting the facts completely wrong.
Philip Butler
Philip Butler Жыл бұрын
@Ivan Lozowy He used a figure of speech to highlight that the Russians did not invade in a traditional sense, because they were already in Ukraine. He wasn't denying that the Russians invaded. You have clearly misunderstood his entire thesis. Of course he blames Russia for the immediate precipitation of the invasion - however he blames the West for what he calls "21st century thinking". His entire argument is that Putin and the Russians are 19th Century Realpolitik thinkers and that the West committed a foreign policy failure for not understanding this. He blames the West for forgetting Realism. That has been his argument since the 1990s.
Ivan Lozowy
Ivan Lozowy Жыл бұрын
@Philip Butler Of course he denied that russia invaded Ukraine, his entire lecture was based on this patently false premise. Mearsheimer's words were clear and unequivocal, he claimed that the war with russia was a "civil conflict" and that "russia never invaded Ukraine." You are trying to defend the indefensible. Please indicate where it is that he "blames Russia for the immediate precipitation of the invasion". His whole argument is that russia is NOT to blame, that the US and the West are to blame. Which is ridiculous in and of itself. It is a ridiculous argument based on patently wrong assertions of fact and if he had any intellectual honesty he would recognize his error and apologize, at least to the people of Ukraine.
Philip Butler
Philip Butler Жыл бұрын
@Ivan Lozowy I don't think you understand the language of International Relations theory. Many conflicts are described as civil conflicts despite having the presence of outside actors. Syria, for example, is described as a civil conflict, despite having at one point both American and Russian troops backing a different side. Yemen is another example. Regardless, your characterisation of what he said is incorrect at best, disingenuous at worst. He says at 21:14: "On February 27th, Russian units begin seizing checkpoints in the Crimea. On the 28th, additional Russian forces begin moving into the Crimea. The Russians didn't conquer or invade Crimea... - they were already there, because they had a leasing agreement...there was a naval base at Sevastopol and the Russians were leasing that naval base from Ukraine, so they had military forces there..." I appreciate English may not be your first language, but you can't stretch the imagination and say that Mearsheimer doesn't believe the Russians invaded Ukraine. He's simply saying they were largely already there and thus, an invasion wasn't necessary. Again, Mearsheimer blames the West for Ukraine, because it began to expand the International Liberal Order during the unipolar time after 1991. It thought Realism was dead and thought the world had moved on from Realpolitik. This was not the case for Russia, so he blames the West for misunderstanding Russia and thus committing the foreign policy failures, which - as he believes - essentially forced Russia to invade Ukraine. This is analysis using International Relations theory. It's not an issue of apportioning blame in the moral sense, but an inevitably based on great power politics. I suggest you read some of his body of work if you still believe this is something he should apologise for saying.
Mark Hui
Mark Hui 2 жыл бұрын
China reacting to grave provocation is called wolf warrior politics. He did talk about the provocation America stir up. America has also lined up its allies to provoke China. John is not honest.
melf Жыл бұрын
John was very right, and you did not understand what he was trying to say. China's foreign policy now is hurting China's interest very badly and helping the US a lot.
happyhappynuts Жыл бұрын
He doesn't blame China. He merely makes the point it's tough for strong nations to avoid conflict.
Harry Kuehb
Harry Kuehb 11 ай бұрын
No there are consistencies of behavior that transcend borders, religions. It's called rational core presumptions. States want to survive, leadership in those countries want to survive and economics trumps ideology. If people are hungry, thirsty or hot or cold, meaning they are physically suffering. You can't be in power for very long. Something the Chinese know all to well. If you study closely the human animal you get with few outliers a clear picture of what people will do. Now sometimes people act irrationally especially in the West. Because they aren't in touch with reality. Only when what they blows up in their face do they realize how stupid they are.
Sam liew
Sam liew 2 жыл бұрын
You guys are worried about China rise because you are so used to be a Hegemon all these 200+ years.
Guenther Michaels
Guenther Michaels Жыл бұрын
Your rise is because of our $ and consumption. Not possible internally.
Desmond Ng
Desmond Ng 2 жыл бұрын
can't we have a peaceful coexistence...for goodness sake! we are human, not animals!
Alter Ego
Alter Ego 2 жыл бұрын
I'm afraid you overestimate humans
Mark Japan
Mark Japan Жыл бұрын
Colin Campbell
Colin Campbell Жыл бұрын
Napoleon Won
Napoleon Won Жыл бұрын
You say the US destroyed all competing powers, such as Japan, Germany in WW1 and Nazi Germany in WW2, and the USSR. Why did you forget the British Empire?
Philip Butler
Philip Butler Жыл бұрын
The British Empire was never destroyed as such, in that the political system in Great Britain never changed. The British Empire was eclipsed by the USA as a result of its exhaustion after the Second World War and its inability to retain its empire as a result of that exhaustion.
Mary Ann M Sebastian
Mary Ann M Sebastian 7 ай бұрын
Support 🙏🕌❤️ to all country the geopolitical living with it's terminology for hengemon wisdom brilliant because hope nocoriya though things this with nice there every Thursday
kenzong Жыл бұрын
dec2021, enlightenment, but a bit too late, America rotten to the core....
Sam liew
Sam liew 2 жыл бұрын
How can China sit back and relax when you guys keep Interfering in their internal affairs HK, Taiwan, Tibet, etc...
Elephant man
Elephant man 2 жыл бұрын
Mate, he was quite obviously playing devil's advocate. He said its perfectly reasonable for China to push back against the US.
tokamak 2 жыл бұрын
Too much sophistry
Mark Japan
Mark Japan Жыл бұрын
oscar1984 3 ай бұрын
A bit too much truth on display here hence won't have many views.
Teerapol Chetananda
Teerapol Chetananda 9 ай бұрын
US have no right to intevene other countries regime. Other countries regime should be fit with their own people on culture, social, economics and history.
kwokho luk
kwokho luk 8 ай бұрын
well said !
X W 2 жыл бұрын
China will sit back and relax if US respect China s rule in Tibet and Taiwan.
David DSM
David DSM 8 ай бұрын
Demolish nato demolish eu
Odilon  Duarte
Odilon Duarte 10 ай бұрын
Me deixe Sr Menn Sr seguro" capitais estadunidense"
verne davis
verne davis Жыл бұрын
Are you guys nuts?! What'n'seven levels of hell are y'all doin' in Hong Kong? When this is recorded. g5, 4June2022
世界大事Peter 11 ай бұрын
The problem is John does understand America isn't the the America he know. America is fast becoming third world countries it lack the ability in manufacturing anything for the last fifty year it has outsourced. It had emphasize in finance and high-end intellectual design instead of doing the dirty work. John talks big but doesn't understand the tide is changing already. I guess that why he is not being used the any government any longer
Hua Oliver Bin
Hua Oliver Bin 9 ай бұрын
He knows a lot about us history but nothing about Chinese history so his theory fits the predatory west but not necessarily to Chinese strategy and intent. A flawed argument
Andrew Lambert
Andrew Lambert 10 ай бұрын
Mary Ann M Sebastian
Mary Ann M Sebastian 7 ай бұрын
Pinakanakapanghihinayang bagay makaligutaan kaibigan pindutin makipagugnayan upang mahanap tunay know this will people for
Pippitze Tze
Pippitze Tze 2 жыл бұрын
Arrogant. Whenever he mentioned the word China or Chinese, he raised his tone by at least two notes. With respect, what makes he think that Chinese is not a peace loving nation when US is putting arm bases here and there all over the world? Why only US have the right to maximize power and security whereas others cannot? When US put arm bases at the door steps of China (in South Korea and Japan), how could China sit back and relax?
Ricardo Pires
Ricardo Pires Жыл бұрын
You chinese tendency is noted
Alexandra V
Alexandra V Жыл бұрын
Agreed. That's what they call "democracy "))) making vassals all over the globe to serve their greedy interests)) if you're not agreed than you're dictator/autocratic/non democratic etc.
吴浩 Жыл бұрын
Frank Nakhai
Frank Nakhai 19 күн бұрын
The professor mearsheimer speaks based on his culture and more precise, his so called ''civilizational'' culture of ruling elites. Same time that culture is based AND rooted in ANGLO-SAXON rulings elites experience of last 400 years; I argue , that even further than that, in last 850 years ago. To England's third Crusade , Richard the Lionheart. No matter how he dices his logic; is it applicable to today's world ? How an establishment in today's world can maintain its hegemony based on keeping down the other older civilizations with more advance cultures? That is why people like him are called reactionaries, no matter how articulate and sophisticated they are. - - California.
Seastallion 11 ай бұрын
My only problem with the predictions being made on China is that it ignores the major demographic and economic problems that China has. China is the fastest aging population in the world today, with the average Chinese being older than the average American. In addition, China has sacrificed profitability in favor of employment into infrastructure projects that are useless and will see no economic benefit. China has numerous infamous "ghost cities" that will never see use because China's population is shrinking rather than growing. China is also having a terrible time feeding itself, such that it might have to forcibly remove people from the cities BACK to the farms further reducing their industrial labor force. This is reflected in the fact that China banned the export of fertilizers a few years ago, BEFORE the shortage caused by the war in Ukraine. It also ignores the fact that China is heavily dependent upon imports of raw materials and energy to keep its industry running. Reports of repeated blackouts in the past year underscore that problem going forward, especially with Russian energy largely being taken off the market, thus making energy harder to get. In short, China's prospects aren't good.
Jerry Loo
Jerry Loo 8 ай бұрын
At least the Prof. Is honest and frank. But his part on not taking in the different philosophy and culture values of the chinese is regrettable. I have gathered the chinese were much in line with the wests (except the one party regime) until 1996 incident when the Taiwan president Lee proclaimed tone of Taiwan independence at Cornell university. It might be an oversight on the US. But it undoubtedly alerts the chinese of US unfriendly attitude or insinuating intentions. Henceforth we saw much military building up of the chinese. If my guessing is right, it’s another human historical twist to tragic.
barumbadum 2 жыл бұрын
Prof. Mearsheimer is the best...
Hudsonstraight8 Жыл бұрын
What a dork, he is endorsing Biden.
japilim 2 жыл бұрын
One sided.
KiatLeong Len
KiatLeong Len 11 ай бұрын
IMO, China's economic rise is largely contributed to the hardworking Chinese themselves with the help of UN charters and institutions. If the US sincerely wants to help others, it could choose democratic India instead. John do not understand the word "survive". No powerful nation who aspires to be regional hegemon thinks about surviving. All of them think about power, influence, coerce and bullying. Survive is the wrong word here. John also do NOT understand that whatever other nations/people say or promise can be taken seriously. He should know that it's the actions taken by other nations that should be taken seriously in order to know/understand their intents. For example, the US has >800 military bases all around the world. The intention is clear that it wants to retain hegemony. Another example is, China is building infrastructures all around the world. The intentions are also clear that it wants to trade, develop and prosper together with them. John also made a mistake thinking that other nations think like the US or the west, i.e., every powerful nation wants or will achieve world hegemony using force. He should study more about China from year 1 till 18xx. The Chinese did not colonize other weak nations during those time when they could easily do so. They just want to trade peacefully. We don't see any loots from other nations stored in Chinese museums too. However, when western powers arrived to Asia in the 16th century, they colonized them in less than 2 years of initial "trading". This proved that western and eastern thinking could be very much different. Regarding John's view on status quo at SCS, East Asia and India border, it would be great if John as a realist elaborate and explain more on the definition of status quo. IMO, after WW2, the US being the least damaged nation, decided the borders and which islands/areas belongs to who. It would be great if John speak out the full truth that KMT and CPC are claiming 11 dash and 9 dash lines respectively. KMT included many other lands (eg Mongolia) and islands besides the 11 dash lines. PRC leaders today are still healing from WW2 and did NOT give up their struggle to get back what's theirs before the western alliances cut off their territories/lands. Does John approves what the western alliance had done to loot and divide China?
Grizzlyx9 Жыл бұрын
USA #1😤💪
Jackey Lee
Jackey Lee Жыл бұрын
Professor John Mearsheimer is one-sided and shallow-minded. First of all, China wouldn't be so stupid to be an economic power threat to the US or any nation in the world. China is currently doing its best to better itself. China is too busy to take care of its own social, economic and global political problems. To my understanding, China has no plan or intention to replace the US as the dominal power. The US has been the invader for the past 50 years with about 800 military bases and forces all over the world. The US fought more than 20 wars with countries all over the world in the past 50 years or so. The US has had more nuclear warheads and missiles to destroy the world many times over. What has the US been afraid of? The US is incredibly secure and safe. The US has been containing China with military bases surrounding China and now the US has joined partnership with UK and Australia to contain China. Such military strategy is more than dangerous. So far China has never invaded or conquered any foreign nation. Why the US, UK and Australia are so afraid of China? China was conquered and invaded by foreign forces painfully and shamefully. The painful experience has taught China good lessons - to build up its military strength or she will be conquered and invaded again. China is building military strength to protect from foreign forces. China is wise enough to fully understand the cost of becoming a military power. China prefers to spend the money on improving the social system, education, social welfare, pension, healthcare and infrastructure etc. for its people. Military hegemony is absolutely out of question and out of China's wish because the China leadership realizes that it won't bring sufficient benefit to China. China has an ongoing policy that it will never interfere in any nation's internal affairs. The US currently owes more than $28 trillion and keeps spending far more money on the military unnecessarily. The US is heading into more dangerously. It would be very stupid and unwise for any nation to put its security concerns in the hands of the US or any nation. This is the main reason that North Korea and Iran are trying very hard to have the nuclear warhead, because they can't trust the US. It would be unconscionable for the leadership in North Korea and Iran not to have nuclear warheads and missiles to protect themselves from the US.
Oscar Robert
Oscar Robert 9 ай бұрын
You are mostly right, I believe. With economic power, comes military: at least I believe so.
SamUSA 2 жыл бұрын
Chinese General Chi Haotian kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXuae5aPhLB7pKc "Our economic development is all about preparing for the needs of War! Publicly we still emphasize economic development as our center, but in reality, economic development has War as its center." "To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions. In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could not kill all the people in the conquered land because back then you could not kill people effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns." "Only by using non destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another."
Anna Carolina Social Support 24 hour Helpline
Anna Carolina Social Support 24 hour Helpline Жыл бұрын
You should be focusing the rise of murder in Chicago. Carjacking, killing on the freeway, and economics collapse.
Am Rb
Am Rb 8 ай бұрын
this guy is so hawkish
kwokho luk
kwokho luk 8 ай бұрын
Because he was graduated from West Point Military Academy in the US. Of course he wants the US to be the only superpower in the world for ever.
Stevo SD
Stevo SD Жыл бұрын
Pity no one is listening to this guy on Ukraine and the NATO dream consequence
az095929 2 жыл бұрын
John J  Mearsheimer: The Great Delusion
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
Indo-Pacific Forecast 2023
Center for Strategic & International Studies
Рет қаралды 102 М.
Wait for it… 😱 #shorts
Рет қаралды 21 МЛН
DIY High Heels Shoes for Dolls #shorts
Cool Hack
Рет қаралды 43 МЛН
Скибиди әжетхана (GTA V)
Рет қаралды 517 М.
John Mearsheimer - The Future of NATO in the Age of Trump | ROEC
Romania Energy Center - ROEC
Рет қаралды 306 М.
Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War
Intelligence Squared
Рет қаралды 1,1 МЛН
China debate: John Mearsheimer | Hugh White | Tom Switzer
Centre for Independent Studies
Рет қаралды 239 М.
A Conversation with John Mearsheimer | ROEC
Romania Energy Center - ROEC
Рет қаралды 639 М.
Book Launch: The Great Delusion
Center for Strategic & International Studies
Рет қаралды 100 М.
The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer
The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
Рет қаралды 4 МЛН
What is ChatGPT doing...and why does it work?
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
The New Cold War | John Mearsheimer | Tom Switzer | CIS
Centre for Independent Studies
Рет қаралды 510 М.
Не знал, что он подполковник | #shorts #upx
Пешком По Небу
Рет қаралды 2,2 МЛН
♦️ Что они съели?😨
Рет қаралды 603 М.
Крысы-Саперы. Как это работает?
Кик Брейнс
Рет қаралды 7 МЛН
Көреміз / «KÖREMIZ»
Рет қаралды 134 М.
Рет қаралды 17 МЛН
Жаннұр Балназымды неге жылатты?😱 Бір Болайық! 31.05.23
Бір болайық / Бир Болайык / Bir Bolayiq
Рет қаралды 85 М.