I have just started my Masters in Asia Pacific Studies in Thailand and this conversation has helped me to understand the history of International Politics in the simplest way and also the purpose of IR theory which is one of my main subjects. Thank you.
What’s interesting is that deep thinkers sometimes take quite a bit of time to ponder things before they arrive at what they might think his the truth. This was obviously the case with Kenneth Waltz. And of course John Mearsheimer picked up a refined Kenneth’s theory to make it even more of an accurate predictive tool. Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism is an excellent tool at explaining history, explaining the current state of affairs as time advances, and it’s also an excellent framework with which to predict the future actions or interactions of states. It’s interesting because while I haven’t had the benefit of being able to bounce my ideas off of others in an academic setting I think I’ve come up with what I call my “course” which expands upon the work of Waltz and Mearsheimer in the realm of international politics and power dynamics and also explains everything else that has to do with human behavior and how we might try to conduct ourselves in order to essentially save ourselves from ourselves and save ourselves from artificial intelligence. It’ll be interesting to see if my “course” gets any traction. If so, it’s possible that it might be able to be used in the same way as offensive realism is used to explain IR as humans might be able to explain to themselves the best way forward.
His idea of anarchy is a lack of government. There is no supra-national government that is able to effect the behavior of a state. The UN has no teeth and has been shown to be ineffective. The State is still supreme, though the nature of the game has changed. The military is no longer the primary way that states attain power, economic coercion has become increasingly important in a world where large scale conflict is avoided as much as possible.
@tzarjez this my friend is what he calls reductionism. :) Sure institutions won't exist without the constituent parts. But once formed, over time the institutions take on a life of its own and develop its own at least partially independent interests and identity. Big bureaucracies have a way of doing that.
I enjoyed finding this resource ! Humbly, I think that Waltz couldn't answer properly about transnational threats cause he was still thinking about states like unitary , racional and main actors, therefore he couldn't imagine new actors or units acting above or separated of the state form, because these new conditions would affect the the same concept of structure
he implies, i think, that these IR theories have recourse to some sort compensation for the noise, if you will, of transnational threats, though i guess we would have to investigate if there are defensible techniques for doing so, within the domain of social science.
This might sound somewhat dissappointing, but: a political theorist, tries to develop models which enables us to explain all sorts of political phenomena. Whether that is about local politics or international politics like Kenneth Waltz did.
@Setzer : I think he was completely right about Saddam. He couldn't attack the US or Europe or anyone else with nuclear weapons because he did not have those - never did. The regjme had lost much of its military capabilities after the sanctions, which crippled the Iraqi economy and made for Saddam impossible any adventure abroad. All the coercive resources of the regime went for maintaining internal stability.
At 56:0 the conundrum posed is if North Korea got h0ld of nukes , but it now has nukes , as of 2021, + a delivery system , but a further complication is that that N.Korea is really a surrogate for China much as Cuba was with the USSR , and in fact it was China that built the nukes, NK being too poor to do so . In fact NK is a vassal state. So theoretically if NK exploded a nuke in the sea China could say blame him not us ., nobody would believe NK , therefore another Korean war is unlikely to end well for the west. China would then simply absorb both NK and the south and have a massive refugee problem + world economic sanctions against it . That would be a deterrant ?????????
Waltz could be more specific to the question about the new transnational terrorism and redefine his concepts on active unites. It's time to update your theory Waltz!
@rpaddon To ignore non state actors in the international system is entirely dubious however. After all hasn't Western Foreign policy of hte past ten years been almost entirely influenced by 9/11? That to me is the critical flaw of his theory.
this is an absolutely amazing series ... a real treasure trove of some of the greatest minds in recent history. I wish the interviewer would not ask such long pontificating questions - he looks like such an intellectual midget against these greats... he should not try to debate them just ask short intro questions....
31:00 Rome dominated "the relevant part of the globe" and is therefore the same as the US dominating all of the globe. The part of the globe dominated by the Mongols, Chinese, Mayans, Ottomans, etc. were "not relevant." What nonsense. How much more Eurocentric could he possibly be?
The Roman Empire was not around when the Mongols, Mayans, or Ottomans were around; the Han Dynasty of China was barely founded (some 2 centuries) before Rome fell. I think you need to learn these people's history before you try to make blatantly false accusations.
behold the musical intro!
Thanks for posting this. I studied Waltz about 30 years ago. He’s a class act.
I studied him 5years ago. Lol
1990s, great author and thinker.
Such a thorough, interesting and relaxed interview.Waltz was endearing and kept conversation flowing intellectually and light.
You are missed! One of the great minds of the field.
Great minds! Thank you for showing that the US have Treasures like You two! Greetings from Norway!
I have just started my Masters in Asia Pacific Studies in Thailand and this conversation has helped me to understand the history of International Politics in the simplest way and also the purpose of IR theory which is one of my main subjects. Thank you.
recommend: check out also the UCB interview with JJ Mearsheimer as well - good luck in your studies!
Thank you
And we are back to a multi-power world. Time flies. Things change.
What’s interesting is that deep thinkers sometimes take quite a bit of time to ponder things before they arrive at what they might think his the truth. This was obviously the case with Kenneth Waltz. And of course John Mearsheimer picked up a refined Kenneth’s theory to make it even more of an accurate predictive tool. Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism is an excellent tool at explaining history, explaining the current state of affairs as time advances, and it’s also an excellent framework with which to predict the future actions or interactions of states. It’s interesting because while I haven’t had the benefit of being able to bounce my ideas off of others in an academic setting I think I’ve come up with what I call my “course” which expands upon the work of Waltz and Mearsheimer in the realm of international politics and power dynamics and also explains everything else that has to do with human behavior and how we might try to conduct ourselves in order to essentially save ourselves from ourselves and save ourselves from artificial intelligence. It’ll be interesting to see if my “course” gets any traction. If so, it’s possible that it might be able to be used in the same way as offensive realism is used to explain IR as humans might be able to explain to themselves the best way forward.
R.I.P Kenneth Waltz. True giant of International Relations
12:00 Ultimately the test of a theory is the usefulness by those in that field
Politicians define "working" in such absurd and self-serving ways
I'm not the only one who thought the intro music was lovely
Great presentation.
Cut to 2021 and we can say that Prof. Waltz was spot on in his reading of the World (in 2003)... be it on Iraq, China, or the World Order in general.
Thank you, very interesting.
Where do i find music like in the intro?
And the UN is as only as strong as its members initiatives.
R.I.P. Kenneth Waltz :(
Body language never lies.
Great! Kenneth RULEZ!
Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny
His idea of anarchy is a lack of government. There is no supra-national government that is able to effect the behavior of a state. The UN has no teeth and has been shown to be ineffective.
The State is still supreme, though the nature of the game has changed. The military is no longer the primary way that states attain power, economic coercion has become increasingly important in a world where large scale conflict is avoided as much as possible.
the master in action
@tzarjez this my friend is what he calls reductionism. :)
Sure institutions won't exist without the constituent parts. But once formed, over time the institutions take on a life of its own and develop its own at least partially independent interests and identity. Big bureaucracies have a way of doing that.
Cool
I enjoyed finding this resource ! Humbly, I think that Waltz couldn't answer properly about transnational threats cause he was still thinking about states like unitary , racional and main actors, therefore he couldn't imagine new actors or units acting above or separated of the state form, because these new conditions would affect the the same concept of structure
he implies, i think, that these IR theories have recourse to some sort compensation for the noise, if you will, of transnational threats, though i guess we would have to investigate if there are defensible techniques for doing so, within the domain of social science.
This might sound somewhat dissappointing, but: a political theorist, tries to develop models which enables us to explain all sorts of political phenomena. Whether that is about local politics or international politics like Kenneth Waltz did.
= hard power. Soft power is cultural, diplomatic, ideological.
Find it's better to term economic as sticky, whereas cultural as sweet.
He doesn't seem uncomfortable here...
@Setzer : I think he was completely right about Saddam. He couldn't attack the US or Europe or anyone else with nuclear weapons because he did not have those - never did. The regjme had lost much of its military capabilities after the sanctions, which crippled the Iraqi economy and made for Saddam impossible any adventure abroad. All the coercive resources of the regime went for maintaining internal stability.
⭐⭐
At 56:0 the conundrum posed is if North Korea got h0ld of nukes , but it now has nukes , as of 2021, + a delivery system , but a further complication is that that N.Korea is really a surrogate for China much as Cuba was with the USSR , and in fact it was China that built the nukes, NK being too poor to do so . In fact NK is a vassal state. So theoretically if NK exploded a nuke in the sea China could say blame him not us ., nobody would believe NK , therefore another Korean war is unlikely to end well for the west. China would then simply absorb both NK and the south and have a massive refugee problem + world economic sanctions against it . That would be a deterrant ?????????
R.I.P. in Piece
Waltz could be more specific to the question about the new transnational terrorism and redefine his concepts on active unites. It's time to update your theory Waltz!
I want the interviewer to say Muffins and Poundcake, just one time, please?
somebody please make a remix of his 'wha-wha-wha' over a techno beat!!
Mr. Waltz predicted China's rise under CCP as well as Iraqi conflict back in 2008.
Shame the interviewer was too afraid to continue discussing bush's mad dog policy a month after this interview us army was already looting in Baghdad
28:57
@rpaddon To ignore non state actors in the international system is entirely dubious however. After all hasn't Western Foreign policy of hte past ten years been almost entirely influenced by 9/11? That to me is the critical flaw of his theory.
this is an absolutely amazing series ... a real treasure trove of some of the greatest minds in recent history. I wish the interviewer would not ask such long pontificating questions - he looks like such an intellectual midget against these greats... he should not try to debate them just ask short intro questions....
The sound is aweful
theory is an instrument used to predict 14:00
sounds like someone went to IR 101 today
@rpaddon Economy=military=power. Simple.
Broke: Fridman
Woke: Mearsheimer
Bespoke: Waltz
I assume Tony Blair never had the pleasure of meeting this guy.
who' s here Poli Sci 7
25:00 ==>
where are the black guyus
rip
The interviewer continues to ask foreign policy questions instead of international relations questions.
Go Nawaz Go
Uh...uh....uh....uh....uh...
31:00 Rome dominated "the relevant part of the globe" and is therefore the same as the US dominating all of the globe. The part of the globe dominated by the Mongols, Chinese, Mayans, Ottomans, etc. were "not relevant." What nonsense. How much more Eurocentric could he possibly be?
The Roman Empire was not around when the Mongols, Mayans, or Ottomans were around; the Han Dynasty of China was barely founded (some 2 centuries) before Rome fell. I think you need to learn these people's history before you try to make blatantly false accusations.
Lol the part of the world the Ottomans dominated MUCH LATER was part of the Roman empire
That is an AWFUL beginning soundtrack!
25:33
13:45