This professor is why I have a strong interest in politics and international relations... I've learned so much from Professor John Mearsheimer about how states behave. Clear, concise, and above all, rather accurate. Many of his discussions are from years ago, up to a decade ago, and when looking at current affairs, everything of what he predicts is accurately predicted. Greatest political strategist and international relations expert of the day.
Simply the best. Anyone who doesn’t take realpolitik seriously isn't realistic about politics. Frankly, The People who disagree with John are socially whining leftists who can’t handle the truth
At least Georgetown has the courage to have a comments section! It is a pity that the State Department is full of folks who are not realists. They cause us massive damage and then retire on a pension.
It’s so unfortunate that voices from realists are very much ignored by the current foreign affairs establishment. As America is done with its brief vacation from true geopolitics, it's just a matter of time before the American elites have to take another serious look at realist theory in IR, whether they like it or not. Decades from now people will say Mearsheimer was ahead of his time, although his theory has long historical stem from the past, throughout human history.
Escalation Dominance Counterforce Counterweight First use First strike Nuclear proliferation survivable retaliatory force splendid first strike manipulation of risk damage limitation capability war fighting limited war
Your text makes no sense, please learn to write cohesive English. Damage limitation capability?!! Wow! Write what you wanna say in your own language and we’ll use Google translate!
Mike Pompeo spelled out US/NATO foriegn global policies in his talk to an audience of neocons at the Hudson Institute. In short he explained that America must use its military might to own all the world's fossil fuel energy resources. Russia must not be allowed to dominate the global energy market, (its market share is about 25%) because the global energy resources must be wholly or in part owned by the Washington corporatocracy in order to facilitate the enrichment of US/NATO plutocrates through US global dominance,
Anything but "Clear"! if you listen to JM hes not just describing hes essentially arguing for nuclear arms advantage "racing" by not only by the US but Russia and China as well -he says the logic of it is not merely compelling, its controlling... at the same time he gives a mixed message, wrings his hands and worries about weak states like Israel or russia with nukes, fears their using nuclear weapons... now how is that policy which ramps up uncertainty and risk on every side sane or "clear"? JM is typical of military pundits, he claims China is a threat and says dangerous nukes are the way to deal with them and further insists in conclusory fashion that there is no way out- how is that "clear"? He gave only about 10 seconds to the way out: "nuclear revolution", disarmament theory and arms control efforts and said its strong but its "wrong". He all but laughed at disarmament and isolationism and peace efforts. Was that "clear"? Only a nut dedicates his pulpit to justifying [selling] great power oppression and rule - Machiavellian attitudes - without due consideration of alternatives that may be safer. Only a nut claims we can hope for or seek a "splendid" 1st strike capability "at best". JM is very good at masking his Hawkish sales pitch as an objective academic opinion when in fact its merely a heavy handed Foggy Hawkish sales job - "we dont understand escalation...no good studies". Do you need a study to know that Escalation is nuts? JFK learned of this "splendid" nonsense from his Hawkish JCS in mid 1963 - they argued like simpletons, he said -they urged JFK to launch a decapitating 1st strike against Soviets in late 1963. JFK was appalled + called it "mad" + he was assassinated a few weeks later.
I am convinced that mankind will be his own demise. We have ruined our planet, mismanaged all our natural resources, global warming, seas drying up and polluted to the extent of the fish being inedible with high levels of mercury and lead in them, droughts all around the world, US west coast burning down, Midwest unlivable due to all the tornadoes, and thank God if those were not enough, we have ayatollahs in Iran, Putin in Russia, and the Rocket man in NKorea all too giddy to use nukes! So my advice to you all is, cash in your 401Ks and retirement funds and try to enjoy your lives while you have a chance. Do the things you always wanted to do and never did. Go take that trip, go fishing, go camping. Enjoy while it lasts.
I agree nobody's used the damn things in 70 years.🙄also when general electric was producing the damn things in the Pacific Northwest cancer rates tripled and there was all kinds of mutations in farm animals and people, never paid a single cent for compensation . Third, let's see this guy eat crow when ones used in his own backyard ?(assuming he isn't reduced to a burnt shadow on the sidewalk) C'mon who's funding this guy?🙄🙄🙄
Something the US has not been able to achieve in almost 60 years If they were short whose going to feed the hungry hungry shareholders at Lockheed martin and Raytheon Only problem I have with him is the idea that we think just purely for strategic purposes rather than in many instances,not strategically as in Iraq and Afghanistan and let private interest dictate our actions If the US does not think strategically in relation to China not just in the 'nuclear sphere' they will learn that they have a far more formidable foe then the soviet union ever was, for sure more formidable than a bunch of Afghan mountain men
49:30 1970s war from egypt 1:01:00 Eastern Ukraine and nukes. And limits on nukes being a perfect deterrent and see comments on states not trusting deterrence capabilities
Clarity and logic geopolitics very well explained . Taking this forward Putin is totally justified in seeking guaranteed security for Russia considering Americans have not only used first strike option but their senators today are proposing first strike against Russia .Indian Military Veterans.
Russia has never been attacked or threatened by any NATO or non-nato country since Hitler and the Nazi Germany. So Putin is a paranoid fool. Whether he feels his fears or concerns are justified it does not justify killing Ukrainian civilians and destroying their homes and apts and raping their women! Putin is a war criminal and should be prosecuted and hanged. If he wanted to invade Ukraine invade! But he was not man enough to do it right. He sent cruise missiles and rocket barrages hitting everything and everyone. Killing men, women, and children. So no my Indian friend that is not how a war is conducted. Putin didn’t do this for NATO he did it because he wanted access in the South to the sea. He wanted to control the ports. Ukraine needs the ports for its exports. You have famine now in India, I bet due to the lack of the same agricultural products Ukraine exports. Hope you and other Indians will manage. Siri Lanka is doing even worse! They just ran out of petrol, what we call gas here in the US.
Every country in the world already carry so much debt, that spending Billions on weapons is just insane.....So much good could be done with that money.
You want to starve the poor shareholders of Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon and Boieng? Are you cruel? Hardworking warmongers, you want to leave them as poor millionaires? Where is your humanity, and I don't mean caring about the homeless and starving the ones forced to go into medical debt because the government is addicted to enriching Military Industrial Complex shareholders pockets, rather than make healthcare you know affordable, No no no not that humanity I mean you want their kids to go to school in cars and not helicopters? you want their fellow boarding school friends to think they're poor? How Cruel!!! You want them to not buy their 4th home in the Hamptons? how cruel!!! To prevent them buying that extra 100ft on a yacht they need to show Chad they have a smaller dick, yes, but a much much larger boat, How cruel!!! What a world we live in where the right to make profits precludes the right of Iraqis to stay alive, or the insulin starved diabetic to gain cheap life saving insulin, while crossing a tiny border into canada gets you a 90% discount What a world and you want to ruin it by not giving people the right to profit off of human suffering, how dare you!!!
Trump should have taken that regime out while he was in the office. Now weakling Biden even gave Afghanistan to the Taliban who are baby Islamists! All of these guys are the same, Taliban, Daesh (Isis) and Iran, Syria, all are criminals.
The system in China is designed to launch nuclear counter attack before enemy's nuclear missiles reached Chinese territories, if the US initiates the first strike, the only hope it has is its missile defense system.
Check the map, if China needs more land closes place is in the other side of the land border not in North America. But don´t worry nuclear Harmagedon will come and now it looks it will be sooner than later.
Trump does things that do not make any sense. He's a wild card factor. On that same note, Israel is also not thinking straight when it comes to Iran. Seems like they're just resorting to unilateral force as a bad crutch. To this date, I'm still not sure why Trump thinks this is a bad deal. Maybe he wanted Iran to not have any nuclear technology.
@@rageburst That is exactly the wisdom. Iran under its current regime should not be allowed to enrich its own uranium. They are not trustworthy to do so. The enriched uranium can be used in developing a nuclear war head. Iran has supported the Hezbollah and provided them with hundreds of rockets they have fired onto Israel. So it does not require a smart person to deduct what they may do with a nuclear weapon.
Why are you so happy about it?! Are you pro government?! I don’t even recognize the murderous regime as my government. I’m a dissident until the overthrow of this hated regime. Keep in mind that our people hate all pro government people.
All your discussion about notifications is folse I really like to use to work but the government process is didn’t work good for me … why until now the Ofer of delivery is nothing
Actually America did have a nuclear war. It dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan even though Japan was on the brink of surrender and had not dropped a single conventional bomb on mainland America.
Russian Embasy in Finland are seeking Russian speaking people who has been mistreaded in Finland to find excuse to invaid Finland. Bad for those 80000 Russian who live in Finland now their escape from Russia ends. Do they like it, maybe not.
The addiction is very hard to work to my bony but I really like to stop this using drug …. I promise to all when the government is legal to ther agreement with me all done I new my life but until now how many agreements I signed where is the true agreement…
Pakistan doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran when it already has two nuclear armed neighbours. Pakistan would prefer if Iran doesn’t acquire nukes however Pakistan can’t overtly be anti-Iran on the issue as Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. That’s not to say Pakistan is a saint it has no problems getting rid of nuclear weapons, but Iran is tricky.
Literally nobody outside of Iran wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. It is lose/lose/lose all the way around, even for Iran. You want to see a brilliant first strike in your lifetime? Just wait till Iran even remotely threatens to nuke Israel. I tend to disagree with Jon on this point mainly because I don't believe Iran was honoring the JPCOA in the first place. Best case scenario we delayed the problem an election cycle or two. Trump's plan was for a coalition of Iran's neighbors to keep them in check instead of the US, that's the main purpose of the Abraham Accords. He also green lights Israel to do whatever they feel is necessary indirectly by getting Iran to start enriching again. And if you've been paying attention somebody---probably Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia---has been working overtime to degrade Iran's enriching capability since Trump quit the JPCOA. Oh, and lastly, nobody has to "give" Iran nuclear weapons. France and Germany seem quite happy to sell Iran the equipment needed to craft nuclear weapons, if the rest of the world will let them.
I’m feeling some kinda way about his seemingly cavalier analysis of the feasibility of nuclear war………Did he slip and hit his head? The Chinese can prolly hit us over here. Is that taken into account? All bets are off, no safe spaces, sacrifice your populous to save your populous? War and war talk only benefits the war industry. Humans: not so much…..
I think the smirk on his face is an involuntary reaction to the fact that he thinks people are swallowing his bullshit.its an indicator that he's built up enough momentum to coast through his oration
Though his ideas are correct, he is utterly wrong about the Tom kippur war, and never really understood president Saadat’s strategy. Maybe he should read articles by the renown prof. Dan Shiftan. And that makes me doubt whether he really knows what he is talking about when he is discussing actual historical cases. An expert should know his limits…
I observe, and i think every person in history up to the future subconsciously knows, "where" realists are really coming from (And i observe this is what the likes of mearsheimer don't really realize). If you and they really think deeply about it, they (realists) are actually really coming from the LACK OF COURAGE,... to be IDEALISTS.... (and they, realists, justify it - realism - with all kinds of "acrobatic" reasoning). Most of them voice out their realpolitik viewpoints in the safety of their privileged circumstances - like Nicollo Machiavelli himself. (That's why he, mearsheimer, always say, not verbatim: "I'm very happy I'm living in (the most powerful) liberal democratic country - which ironically is a product of idealism, ...but when it comes to international relations...- he's a realist) His and his et al's IR Old World 19th century Machiavellian realpolitik viewpoint... ...actually HAS to die,... ... WE, THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE ALL KNOW IT IN OUR HEARTS IT HAS TO DIE, "YESTERDAY", hundreds, even thousands of years ago... ... And I think deep inside his (mearsheimer et al's) heart he knows it. But like all (socio) realists, he doesn't have the COURAGE to admit it...because he doesn't have the courage to BE against it (PREVAILING human CONSTRUCTED reality)... And his realist thinking is greatly influenced by his privileged personal situation: a legal citizen of the most powerful nation in the world, and all the privileges and personal SAFETY, it entails. What differentiates a realist from an idealist? COURAGE and Empathy for the rest of YOUR human race. Courage to DESIRE, ENVISION AND USE YOUR GREAT MIND, to PERPETUALLY make things better than what they are, than JUST cowardly accept the social constructs that our physical/biological/historical reality socially CONSTRUCTED for us. Clue: if it's constructed, it can be DE-constructed or changed.
If only idealists would stay home: let's not forget who the real aggressor is: Master List of US Aggression By William Blum Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government) China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti *2004 Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 * Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 *
@@victoews6842 Idealist DOESN'T mean pro-EVERYTHING-US or democratic West. Idealism means making things better than what they are at every moment, first, by not accepting the shortcomings or imperfections of physical and social constructed realities, and second, by perpetually finding ways to make them better. ...(?)
@@victoews6842 If idealists "stayed home", then there wouldn't be a nation with an elected leader (cuz the ubiquitous reality then were kingdoms and empires), or state sanctioned slavery and gender inequalities would still be the dominant realities.
In the context of it being May 2022: ... there is a strip of land, above North Korea, between China and the sea, that is Russian. It almost looks like the coast line there is in direct line of site with a part of Japan's coast line. Also, sort of in a direct line across the ocean with the US/ Canadian border to the East, with Moscow across land to the west, and with Australia down to the south. A stupid idea ... how much would Russia want for that land in part along side Japan and directly above North Korea, and bordering it, say up to the highest level of the top border of China and at an angle, guesstimate 45°, to draw a line to the coast? That strip of land above North Korea along China, if bought, as US permanent soil (not property owned by US yet within Russia, but, sort of not unlike how Alaska became a state of the US?)? ... nearness to Japan, Taiwan, obviously, South Korea ... it seems not unreasonable, as a portion for Russia to actually consider it and possibly accept it ... any more than that though, might be pushing things too much. It seems like psychologically, an area that mirrored Australia in size would be the limit, and certainly more, like, yeah, no way in the world today. ... Would it make things worse, if there were US bases permanently there. Is it a bad strategic idea for the US? I don't know. What is more important: to make Putin pay and cripple Russia and therefore potentially providing an opening for Putin and Russia to, in effect, become ruled by China and be China - extending China into Euroasia and Europe, up to Ukraine's borders and increasing China's land based resources (like rare earth minerals, coal, oil, access to the arctic), production e.t.c.? ... Or ... for the EU (which essentially also includes the US, UK, e.t.c.) to stop squabbling and infighting, which is resource intensive, putting the whole world at risk, risking the start of WWIII, and which is literally destroying those purported to be in need of protection and being protected, to instead to form an alliance with Russia? ... wouldn't that open a gateway for diplomacy and trade with Euroasia and or the Middle East (Russia is part of Europe and Eurasia, as Turkey is part of Europe and the Middle East)? ... If Turkey and Georgia were part of the EU and EU had an alliance or special alliance with Russia ... how would the globe look then? .... proportionally, EU/UK/US compared with China/(Russia) or EU/UK/US/Russia compared with China? I still think Crimea sort of looks like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth. If it became the official EU capital, it would certainly allow the borders of the story to be told from a different perspective ... the outer would become the inner and the inner the outer ... the light, attraction, pull, would be on the middle, Crimea and the current centres would become the peripherals ... with periphery scenes for clandestine meetings in support of or to undermine the middle ... at any rate, it seems like migration would more likely be to where the light and the voice box is ... I don't know. Short version: ... where is the current fighting? ... what is it over ... exactly ...? ... it doesn't look like it might cease any time soon. ... Would it be impossible, in that area, to convert the type ... of war ... from war of might to war of words? i.e. Ukraine retain sovereignty, possibly join the EU, a section of Ukraine (with Ukraine's permission) become the de jure capital of the EU, a buffer area that is Ukraine and Russia ... NATO headquarters remain where they are ... ? and, ... which agreement already assures Ukraines borders? This wouldn't support military goals, with less negative impact on civilians than sanctions or lending/giving military equipment*, and or contribute to long term security, safety and lives of military personnel? *military equipment (that might get scavenged/reverse engineered/sent elsewhere/on sold and or seized? ... and an increased risk, that, doesn't seem like it would be impossible to forsee: friendly fire, and, fingers point, as if otherwise?). ... distance of Ukraine ... possible EU de jure capital, international embassies ... Iranian oil ... ? ... if a section of Ukraine (with Ukraine's permission) becomes the de jure capital of the EU ... the US would need an embassy there ... as would the UK and Russia and e.t.c. ... also, ... de jure capital of EU in Ukraine ... seems like there would be more cameras there then .... ... who can assist with knowledge and wisdom, to turn it into a historic moment? ... peaceful? ... Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia At a distance, it seems like Steve Chapman could get away with looking like John Mearsheimer. John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
From the middle of elsewhere: In addition (particulars aside) though, it sound like it is important not to loose sight of other parties concerns and possible conflict, that might otherwise become as if not heard or recognised, from not also paying attention to a wider multifaceted perspective? It really seems like, not every thing is clear cut - some things exist because of light, shade and shadows, and perspective: as a comparative type example, from one of many other possibilities: if a buffer is thought of as a human shield, bearing weight of force, then, that scenario might be considered hard lined and reprehensible. If on the other hand a buffer is thought of as a graduated, transition area, a zone or blend, where some people feel comfortable (even though you might not feel comfortable there, those people feel comfortable), and like translators of culture and understanding, then, that scenario might be considered vibrant and diverse. Given therefore, only that description and comparison, which scenario does a buffer comes across as, bearing weight of force? (to change things, of concerns, e.t.c.)? Also, if someone is forced to join a democratic society quickly, is that democratic? They wouldn't get blinded by choice, be overwhelmed, become frustrated, and from that bad experience, not necessarily feel they are part of a democratic society and fail to grasp what it is to be part of a democratic society? ... I don't know ... How about, the role of the internet? Where does it begin, where does it end? Is it discretely subdivided or continuous? Is it more part of admiralty, or space, or international, national, corporate, private, public, a utility, catalogue, publisher, telecommunications, distribution network, e.t.c.? ... international relations aren't, international? ... international politics isn't, international? ... Is it, that what is being sought, is national theories of international politics? Does it make as much sense, or more sense, or less sense, than international theories of national politics? It seems that, international politics, could be another national category: national politics of international politics, equivalent to saying, national politics of US politics, or, national politics of China politics, or, national politics of Turkish politics, or, e.t.c. ? Therefore, theories of international politics, by definition, would be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of the international nation? Either, the US, and China, and Turkey, and, e.t.c., together form, a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, or, they don't, and, distinct from, say, being a union of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states? "China and Academia, what they want, John Mearsheimer" (International Relations & Politics) It sounds like, within IR theory: As part of Mearsheimer's 5 Assumptions: In an IR field, nations' internal national politics - are not significant and can also be significant: a) for the most part can be treated as having a negligible effect. b) under certain circumstances treated as having a non-negligible effect. A dispute, occurring under different circumstances: in the middle of international waters, or, in extending an economic exclusion zone into either another economic exclusion zone or into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not). In a dispute that occurs in the middle of international waters, internal national politics of a nation, would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible. In a dispute extending an economic exclusion zone into another another economic exclusion zone, then, internal national politics of nations involved would appear not to be significant and also significant, negligible and non-negligible - an additional nation, whose economic exclusion zone not affected, although, changes might alter agreements for passage, that additional nation's national politics would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible - or, if into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not), internal national politics of nations involved might be not dissimilar to that of additional nation. It looks like, in all those scenarios, it possible to simultaneously act as a part of nation and as part of an international nation. If all nations were in a union, then, it seems like, in that situation, there might not be an international nation to be a part of, as all nations would belong to the same overall nation, governed by the same rules. Although, it might seem like it is not possible for an international nation to form, distinct from other nations and distinct from a union of nations, from within a union of nations, it might not be impossible. Let's say that, there is a union called, Earth Nation, and every and all nations belong to it - it is all of the planet earth. Any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all nations. For example, Earth Nation might be responsible for deciding, if the moon is part of Earth Nation (or not), and if so, also assuming the moon is colonised and it wants to mooxit from Earth Nation, any negotiations for that mooxit. Now, let's say Earth Nation is responsible for the internet and any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all for the internet. As an example, a rule might be that, all will be identified on Earth Nation internet, in the same way they are within the union that is Earth Nation, by each individual nation they are a citizen of. Another rule, might be the recognition of an international nation and each individual nation on Earth Nation internet, and, all individuals of Earth Nation on the internet, not to be restricted from being able to participate in more than a nation, and, their citizenship and or where they are resident to be publicly displayed in any individual nation as a rule. Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for an individual nation of the internet, would be determined by that individual nation and be applicable in that individual nation but not necessarily in each and every individual nation or the international nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated. Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for the international nation of the internet, would be determined together by any individual nation participating and be applicable in the international nation, but not necessarily in each and every individual nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated. So, if a US citizen, entered the UK nation on the internet, no matter where they lived, it would not be obvious, whether they were a UK citizen or not and or resident or not, but, would have to follow UK rules there and US rules would not apply - if in the UK nation on the internet, then it taken to be as if in the UK. If that same US citizen entered the International nation on the internet, then, it might show that it is a US citizen belonging to the US nation that they are participating, together with others, in forming the composition of that international nation, however, again, US rules would not apply, and would have to follow international rules. Now, take a mainstream media video and comment section: it could be accessed in UK nation or International nation, but, it would be accessed from different places and the rules may or may not be different. Say for example, a rule of the international nation, that comment sections are to be treated as a town square. It wouldn't matter which nation a person was a citizen of or resident. When commenting in a comment section of a mainstream media video in the international nation, no matter where a person physically in the world, if in the international nation internet section, and the rule, comment sections are to be treated as a town square, and they choose to comment there, then, it is to be taken that commening there is as if doing so in a town square. On the other hand, when commenting in a comment section of that same mainstream media video in the UK nation, the rule might be that it is to be treated as a private function at a venue. The choice, the risk, the benefits, upto individual internet users. If an individual does not feel comfortable with or familiar with rules on the internet of a nation they live in, then, they might choose not to comment in that nation's corresponding internet nation. Some individuals might feel comfortable the most, where they are actually a citizen, while others might find they spend most of their time in the international nation. It doesn't sort of look like, it is not impossible for there to be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of an international nation? ... a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, and, distinct from, say, being a union of nations, of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states? Don't mind me, I should be sleeping proper in the now ... I'll have to check what I've written later ... Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia New comments won't stay ... they disappear, on yt ... and my linkedin posts ... I can't access them ... Fb was ... maybe ... see if I can share this there ...
Short version: Significance of the US Constitution: in the US; outside the US. Significance of other parts of the world having their own constitution: to that part of the world; to the US. Significance of a Constitution in cohesion, flexibility, peace, competition, being kept accountable: from an internal point of view; from an external point of view. Examples: - an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" - framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. -"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, ... "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention." - if EU invested in coming up with their own Constitution. - the ability to converse with others based on their own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (your) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. - the ability to converse with others based on your own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (our) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. Crimea doesn't sort of look like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth? .................... Example: Part of a conversation on fb: A reply: Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science! , "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science!" ... that came from? The reply: Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere. Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it! People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples! A reply: Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish! "end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination" , that hasn't happened in history? ... how do people spread killer viruses? A reply: "Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!" , not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs? , almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist? ... also, seems a bit authoritarian. ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) and, ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter V: The States Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion") "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Australian Parliament House, website) (While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... )
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
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating). I'm sorry, this is not on topic and probably sounds almost pathetic, however, somehow, I've got no one to talk with. Would it be too difficult to organise a sort of conversation pal mentor? 3:45 min ... "two-way conversation ... " 3:57 min ... "how to reach that ... audience in ways that are different ... " 4:18 min ... 4:23 min ... "Joseph Nye on the Future of Soft Power and Public Diplomacy" (USC Annenberg) "Soft power scholar Joseph Nye discusses the new challenges faced by public diplomacy prac... " There's also a ted talk that says isolation is a dream killer or something like that, and Harvard has researched something not dissimilar over a long term, as in, like 80 years. So, what a good idea, to reach out, and, in that spirit, would it be ridiculous if ... I feel like going, what the hey ... Would it be ridiculous if a person who is able to contact someone trustworthy and knowledgeable facilitated contact, so that I have a person to talk with ... ? Is that too much to ask? John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating). I can't get through to any one, as in, can't actually reach anyone to be able to establish raport, have two way communication, make contacts or to maintain, e.t.c. ... (and this is Australia) ... things are not ok ... everything is not ok ... I'm literally barely getting through, isolated, no washing machine ... struggling ... medical physical condition ... ... yes ... haven't seen my primary school aged daughter since 2018 ... in disbelief ... ... yeah ... ... time it can't be traced ... To put things in perspective, I'm divorced (since 2018), met my now x-husband in 1999 at uni, ... and, no, I'm not a youth or young adult ... there is no 'o' or 't' or 't' at the start of my age on paper, haven't been able to get in contact with a trustworthy lawyer ... haven't seen my primary school aged daughter for three/four years (since 2018) or establish contact with ... I've not had much success with tele communication in general, it seems, and physically (a combination of medical: systemic like arthritis and various, and, lack of everyday resources: living on camping gear and is not having a washing machine in Australia sort of like OHS being disregarded?) and financially stuck (unemployed), in a temporary place I didn't want to move into, that is owned by my x- husband's parents. I'm stuck. Despite the rumours, I have no plans to leave this earth ... climbing into a small capsule which is part of a rocket to then be blasted against gravity into the vacuum of space ... yeah, I know: what is wrong with me, right? ... Having said that ... a mentor, in general, from any (as long as it's above board) sphere of life, would be appreciated - I'm needing to start as if from scratch in all areas and could do with a little bit of guidance/advice, from possibly not just one type of mentor (like for practical life guidance, career, ... e.t.c.). John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating). Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia 0417 579 364 eleonorawithcharlotte g mail ('Charlotte', in my email address, is my daughter's name.) Although, not sure what is happening with emails I send. Sent an email to news sky ... don't know if it got there ... ... eleonorawithcharlotte g mail ... My comments (yesterday/earlier today) are not staying anywhere on yt ... they disappear within about 17 to 30 seconds or straight away, on first refresh or while editing and it then unavailable to post or ... problem with server [404] ... and, fb has been blanket disabling comment functions on fb at times ... with failed to post and '!' symbol ... also, not sure what has happened to my linkedin account ..."Sorry, we couldn’t find that post. Let’s try again… Retry" ... "Something went wrong. We're having issues loading the page. Go to your feed" ... "This profile is not available. Retry" ...
Putin is an imperialist who constantly attacks other countries on all levels. So he either conqueres his neighbour's, turn thrm in puppet regimes or harasses them.
Is John Mearsheimer's basic premise correct that all great powers are basically evil, will not tolerate any competition correct and invade those who do not bow to them? If it is wrong, then all the arguments he presented are flawed.
It's not evil to seek security. Morality doesn't apply when it comes to great power politics, because it is impossible to confirm benign intentions indefinitely. Country A cannot assume that country B will always be benevolent due to whatever the current flavor of morality is. Morality can change, leadership can change, etc. So instead you have to work with what is verifiable, namely balance of power. Really, if you want to take this path to counter his argument your first step will be explaining how most of history disagrees with you and agrees with him. Most of the academics who disagree with him don't do so because balance of power politics isn't real, they do so because they fervently hope we live in a world that has left balance of power politics behind. Unfortunately that isn't the case, as evidenced by the behaviors of the US, Russia, and China in today's world. The only reason it looks like Western Europe has left balance of power politics behind is because they have the US as the night watchman.
@@lepidoptera9337 What are you talking about? Night watchman isn't a conspiracy. It's the peacekeeper who adds hierarchy to an otherwise anarchical system. If America can be relied upon---and they could---to come to the aid of NATO members whose existence was threatened then those NATO members no longer had to play balance of power politics.
I admire John’s knowledge and wisdom tremendously, but I strongly disagree with his talk around the 6th minute mark. Try to listen to it and see what he said: “No one would be foolish enough to use it”!! I can give you at least 3 countries who have demented leaders and would use it! One of them who has promised to use it if they have it! Iran is that country, and they have been quite explicit about what they would do with it. Remember the Wipe Israel Off the Face Of The World statement? That was an Official statement. Then you’ve crazies like Putin and N.Korean Rocket man! Both have threatened to use them.
No they won't, it would really help when Americans actually speak Farsi or other languages and actually study other cultures snd live abroad and learn about the world.
@@TorianTammas what does Americans ability to speak Farsi has to do with what I said?! Are you high on something? Please pay attention to what John said in regards to no one being crazy enough to use nukes. And I said sir, you are mistaken because we have crazies back home trying to develop a warhead to do just that. Where do you think all those rockets launched over Israel come from? You think Hezbollah manufactures them? Pls when you don’t know about the subject matter don’t make stupid comments! It just pisses me off even more!
yet another crazy doctor... His analysis lacks foundations and considers his assumptions as valid axioms for human thinking. A speculative theorist at best who lacks scientific onsight. Not the type of guy to consider as an advisor (maybe for the type of shoes you want to buy...).
This is gibberish... read the book "Myth of the Nuclear Revolution" by Keir Lieber, a prominent Georgetown University scholar who makes these arguments with historic evidence, and who Mearsheimer was a mentor to.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[China Lecture Series] 32강 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 : 존 미어샤이머 (John J. Mearsheimer)](/img/n.gif)
This professor is why I have a strong interest in politics and international relations... I've learned so much from Professor John Mearsheimer about how states behave. Clear, concise, and above all, rather accurate. Many of his discussions are from years ago, up to a decade ago, and when looking at current affairs, everything of what he predicts is accurately predicted. Greatest political strategist and international relations expert of the day.
John is my favorite geopolitical theorist/strategist.
He is so enjoyable=entertaining to listen to.
Yeah man. The guy is a legend. He will be an icon for the rest of my days, and have a profound impact of my thinking.
Simply the best. Anyone who doesn’t take realpolitik seriously isn't realistic about politics.
Frankly, The People who disagree with John are socially whining leftists who can’t handle the truth
Tommy 👋
Professor JM is a gift to humanity.
Humanity ? via ....
Only if people can understand logic.
La. Lojica. Es. Y muy q. Impowvtante
I'm a great admirer of his clarity. Same with Stephen M. Walt! Great video, thank you! Greetings from Chile
At least Georgetown has the courage to have a comments section! It is a pity that the State Department is full of folks who are not realists. They cause us massive damage and then retire on a pension.
Im waiting for the next video of the great mearsheimer. So clear, real and clever. Much praise from Norway!
He has been proven to be extremely wrong! He is a Richard Head! He is a FW.......looking back on his work from 30/09/2022
It’s so unfortunate that voices from realists are very much ignored by the current foreign affairs establishment. As America is done with its brief vacation from true geopolitics, it's just a matter of time before the American elites have to take another serious look at realist theory in IR, whether they like it or not. Decades from now people will say Mearsheimer was ahead of his time, although his theory has long historical stem from the past, throughout human history.
Who could _hear them_ over the shrieking of the likes of Joy Reed or idiot-Bayhar, et al.
I continuously think that one day Mearsheimer will get the respect he deserves. It will take many years, however; hopefully less than ten.
Mr. Mearsheimer is a truly great mind
Too bad we have Joe Biden instead in the WH! So what good is it, if the best and the brightest scholarly minds are never used by the administrations?!
He is brilliant and funny!
I've stopped saying Uncle Sam and now say Uncle Sugar all because of Dr. Mearsheimer. XD
Lol 😅
Escalation Dominance
Counterforce
Counterweight
First use
First strike
Nuclear proliferation
survivable retaliatory force
splendid first strike
manipulation of risk
damage limitation capability
war fighting
limited war
Pay in rubles
Your text makes no sense, please learn to write cohesive English. Damage limitation capability?!! Wow! Write what you wanna say in your own language and we’ll use Google translate!
I love this man :))!! clever and funny at the same time.
_Sworn enemies, standing in deep gasoline; one with 3 matches & the other w 5...is nuclear arms racing_
How great could the world and our lives be when reasonable men lead ?
I'm beginning to think such a reality is an impossibility.
Mental Illness and lack of empathy/compassion rules.
John 👋
Mike Pompeo spelled out US/NATO foriegn global policies in his talk to an audience of neocons at the Hudson Institute.
In short he explained that America must use its military might to own all the world's fossil fuel energy resources. Russia must not be allowed to dominate the global energy market, (its market share is about 25%) because the global energy resources must be wholly or in part owned by the Washington corporatocracy in order to facilitate the enrichment of US/NATO plutocrates through US global dominance,
Thanks. Very clear.
Anything but "Clear"!
if you listen to JM hes not just describing hes essentially arguing for nuclear arms advantage "racing" by not only by the US but Russia and China as well -he says the logic of it is not merely compelling, its controlling... at the same time he gives a mixed message, wrings his hands and worries about weak states like Israel or russia with nukes, fears their using nuclear weapons... now how is that policy which ramps up uncertainty and risk on every side sane or "clear"?
JM is typical of military pundits, he claims China is a threat and says dangerous nukes are the way to deal with them and further insists in conclusory fashion that there is no way out- how is that "clear"?
He gave only about 10 seconds to the way out: "nuclear revolution", disarmament theory and arms control efforts and said its strong but its "wrong". He all but laughed at disarmament and isolationism and peace efforts. Was that "clear"?
Only a nut dedicates his pulpit to justifying [selling] great power oppression and rule - Machiavellian attitudes - without due consideration of alternatives that may be safer.
Only a nut claims we can hope for or seek a "splendid" 1st strike capability "at best".
JM is very good at masking his Hawkish sales pitch as an objective academic opinion when in fact its merely a heavy handed Foggy Hawkish sales job - "we dont understand escalation...no good studies".
Do you need a study to know that Escalation is nuts?
JFK learned of this "splendid" nonsense from his Hawkish JCS in mid 1963 - they argued like simpletons, he said -they urged JFK to launch a decapitating 1st strike against Soviets in late 1963. JFK was appalled + called it "mad" + he was assassinated a few weeks later.
Money originated with royalty and slavery, it has nothing to do with democracy or the struggle of the impoverished enslaved majority.~Aristotle
My fav Author
Great man
Brilliant
😊🏴☠️
Alan 👋
Reasonable, but insane.The world is too small for behaviour of this kind. We must grow up if we are to survive.
This is the problem. It would also help if people could stop listening to MSM. Growing one's mind seems rare, these days.
I am convinced that mankind will be his own demise. We have ruined our planet, mismanaged all our natural resources, global warming, seas drying up and polluted to the extent of the fish being inedible with high levels of mercury and lead in them, droughts all around the world, US west coast burning down, Midwest unlivable due to all the tornadoes, and thank God if those were not enough, we have ayatollahs in Iran, Putin in Russia, and the Rocket man in NKorea all too giddy to use nukes! So my advice to you all is, cash in your 401Ks and retirement funds and try to enjoy your lives while you have a chance. Do the things you always wanted to do and never did. Go take that trip, go fishing, go camping. Enjoy while it lasts.
@@pirelli1 Sadly true - we really have screwed the whole planet. I think a lot can come back though, if only we stopped the destruction.
I agree nobody's used the damn things in 70 years.🙄also when general electric was producing the damn things in the Pacific Northwest cancer rates tripled and there was all kinds of mutations in farm animals and people, never paid a single cent for compensation . Third, let's see this guy eat crow when ones used in his own backyard ?(assuming he isn't reduced to a burnt shadow on the sidewalk) C'mon who's funding this guy?🙄🙄🙄
Realists are peace makers (or at least the wars are winnable and short ).
Something the US has not been able to achieve in almost 60 years
If they were short whose going to feed the hungry hungry shareholders at Lockheed martin and Raytheon
Only problem I have with him is the idea that we think just purely for strategic purposes rather than in many instances,not strategically as in Iraq and Afghanistan and let private interest dictate our actions
If the US does not think strategically in relation to China not just in the 'nuclear sphere' they will learn that they have a far more formidable foe then the soviet union ever was, for sure more formidable than a bunch of Afghan mountain men
More like Chad Mearsheimer
What does this MEAN????
49:30 1970s war from egypt
1:01:00 Eastern Ukraine and nukes. And limits on nukes being a perfect deterrent and see comments on states not trusting deterrence capabilities
The man is prescient.
Baker, Bush, Thatcher, Hurd, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Major, Woernor
Great mind.
how so? BTW, do you work for Sandia or DOD?
Very interesting - thank you!
Clarity and logic geopolitics very well explained . Taking this forward Putin is totally justified in seeking guaranteed security for Russia considering Americans have not only used first strike option but their senators today are proposing first strike against Russia .Indian Military Veterans.
Looks for Putin's 2007 Munich speech
Russia has never been attacked or threatened by any NATO or non-nato country since Hitler and the Nazi Germany. So Putin is a paranoid fool. Whether he feels his fears or concerns are justified it does not justify killing Ukrainian civilians and destroying their homes and apts and raping their women! Putin is a war criminal and should be prosecuted and hanged. If he wanted to invade Ukraine invade! But he was not man enough to do it right. He sent cruise missiles and rocket barrages hitting everything and everyone. Killing men, women, and children. So no my Indian friend that is not how a war is conducted. Putin didn’t do this for NATO he did it because he wanted access in the South to the sea. He wanted to control the ports. Ukraine needs the ports for its exports. You have famine now in India, I bet due to the lack of the same agricultural products Ukraine exports. Hope you and other Indians will manage. Siri Lanka is doing even worse! They just ran out of petrol, what we call gas here in the US.
@@jacobjorgenson9285 what about it?
The lesson is 'You dont want to get vaporized, that's bad'
Date of the conference? Since the date written above does not mean necessarily that thas the date of the conference.
Every country in the world already carry so much debt, that spending Billions on weapons is just insane.....So much good could be done with that money.
You want to starve the poor shareholders of Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon and Boieng?
Are you cruel? Hardworking warmongers, you want to leave them as poor millionaires? Where is your humanity, and I don't mean caring about the homeless and starving the ones forced to go into medical debt because the government is addicted to enriching Military Industrial Complex shareholders pockets, rather than make healthcare you know affordable,
No no no not that humanity I mean you want their kids to go to school in cars and not helicopters? you want their fellow boarding school friends to think they're poor? How Cruel!!! You want them to not buy their 4th home in the Hamptons? how cruel!!! To prevent them buying that extra 100ft on a yacht they need to show Chad they have a smaller dick, yes, but a much much larger boat, How cruel!!!
What a world we live in where the right to make profits precludes the right of Iraqis to stay alive, or the insulin starved diabetic to gain cheap life saving insulin, while crossing a tiny border into canada gets you a 90% discount
What a world and you want to ruin it by not giving people the right to profit off of human suffering, how dare you!!!
I agree to who any to 4 key delivery and how to truck the wrong notifications is noting to my agreement
The biggest secret in politics , nobody else wants to do it
I cannot change the 4 selected but why no more notifications when wher to do my work schedule needed the true notifications
Wow, Lewis Black has thought about this a lot
Ronaldo 👋
AFAIK, Iran has got a great deal of enrichment going on.
Trump should have taken that regime out while he was in the office. Now weakling Biden even gave Afghanistan to the Taliban who are baby Islamists! All of these guys are the same, Taliban, Daesh (Isis) and Iran, Syria, all are criminals.
Dont you think security from tcunami because underwater vulcan sprength ?
The system in China is designed to launch nuclear counter attack before enemy's nuclear missiles reached Chinese territories, if the US initiates the first strike, the only hope it has is its missile defense system.
5 Assumptions apply to Individuals, as they do to States. Predictability is never a given.
Well argued the global ambivalence begotten by clashing interests of super powers.
Dalinkus 👋
Check the map, if China needs more land closes place is in the other side of the land border not in North America. But don´t worry nuclear Harmagedon will come and now it looks it will be sooner than later.
president trump violation of Iran deal was an end to proliferation treaty, once and for all.
cheers
Trump does things that do not make any sense. He's a wild card factor. On that same note, Israel is also not thinking straight when it comes to Iran. Seems like they're just resorting to unilateral force as a bad crutch. To this date, I'm still not sure why Trump thinks this is a bad deal. Maybe he wanted Iran to not have any nuclear technology.
One day soon, the Iranian people will throw out the Mullahs and their Bronze Aged theocracy, become a secular state like the rest of the freeworld.
That may be more entertaining than you anticipate.
@@rageburst That is exactly the wisdom. Iran under its current regime should not be allowed to enrich its own uranium. They are not trustworthy to do so. The enriched uranium can be used in developing a nuclear war head. Iran has supported the Hezbollah and provided them with hundreds of rockets they have fired onto Israel. So it does not require a smart person to deduct what they may do with a nuclear weapon.
Why are you so happy about it?! Are you pro government?! I don’t even recognize the murderous regime as my government. I’m a dissident until the overthrow of this hated regime. Keep in mind that our people hate all pro government people.
All your discussion about notifications is folse I really like to use to work but the government process is didn’t work good for me … why until now the Ofer of delivery is nothing
8 star General
Vulcano can be detonated with a little nuckear stoff and its very destroing
You need to stop drinking stoff, kid. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 , then somebody from Rf needs to stop serving this
@@annedahl7151 Why?
@@lepidoptera9337 , because Jm not the kid and know what Jm talking about.
@@annedahl7151 That's exactly what you sound like. ;-)
Actually America did have a nuclear war. It dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan even though Japan was on the brink of surrender and had not dropped a single conventional bomb on mainland America.
Yeah the nuclear prevention measures went out the window nowdays
But per JM China has a vital interests for nk not to have a nuke. They hated nk for dragging them into the Korean War.
We do. And we hope they do not drop nuclear warhead to our land.
The saying goes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Russian Embasy in Finland are seeking Russian speaking people who has been mistreaded in Finland to find excuse to invaid Finland. Bad for those 80000 Russian who live in Finland now their escape from Russia ends. Do they like it, maybe not.
Yes I respect united state of America to trust in god
💡
Where did America drop the automlc bombi....
.first strik
The addiction is very hard to work to my bony but I really like to stop this using drug …. I promise to all when the government is legal to ther agreement with me all done I new my life but until now how many agreements I signed where is the true agreement…
Will Russia or Pakistan give nuclear weapons to Iran?
EU should give Iran nukes. Its worth it to get Trump's gangsters to back off.
Pakistan doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran when it already has two nuclear armed neighbours. Pakistan would prefer if Iran doesn’t acquire nukes however Pakistan can’t overtly be anti-Iran on the issue as Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. That’s not to say Pakistan is a saint it has no problems getting rid of nuclear weapons, but Iran is tricky.
No.
The future of WMD's is Biological.
Literally nobody outside of Iran wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. It is lose/lose/lose all the way around, even for Iran. You want to see a brilliant first strike in your lifetime? Just wait till Iran even remotely threatens to nuke Israel. I tend to disagree with Jon on this point mainly because I don't believe Iran was honoring the JPCOA in the first place. Best case scenario we delayed the problem an election cycle or two. Trump's plan was for a coalition of Iran's neighbors to keep them in check instead of the US, that's the main purpose of the Abraham Accords. He also green lights Israel to do whatever they feel is necessary indirectly by getting Iran to start enriching again. And if you've been paying attention somebody---probably Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia---has been working overtime to degrade Iran's enriching capability since Trump quit the JPCOA.
Oh, and lastly, nobody has to "give" Iran nuclear weapons. France and Germany seem quite happy to sell Iran the equipment needed to craft nuclear weapons, if the rest of the world will let them.
I’m feeling some kinda way about his seemingly cavalier analysis of the feasibility of nuclear war………Did he slip and hit his head? The Chinese can prolly hit us over here. Is that taken into account? All bets are off, no safe spaces, sacrifice your populous to save your populous? War and war talk only benefits the war industry. Humans: not so much…..
I think the smirk on his face is an involuntary reaction to the fact that he thinks people are swallowing his bullshit.its an indicator that he's built up enough momentum to coast through his oration
I believed in god to giving power and guidance of truth for me……
Larry 👋
i guess nato actions scared russia enough.
Ukraine war come to reality as per his prediction in one of his lectures
Though his ideas are correct, he is utterly wrong about the Tom kippur war, and never really understood president Saadat’s strategy. Maybe he should read articles by the renown prof. Dan Shiftan. And that makes me doubt whether he really knows what he is talking about when he is discussing actual historical cases. An expert should know his limits…
Mearsheimer isn't a historian and it shows. He has an ideology through which he sees the world and does not realize how wrong he is.
I observe, and i think every person in history up to the future subconsciously knows, "where" realists are really coming from (And i observe this is what the likes of mearsheimer don't really realize). If you and they really think deeply about it, they (realists) are actually really coming from the LACK OF COURAGE,... to be IDEALISTS....
(and they, realists, justify it - realism - with all kinds of "acrobatic" reasoning).
Most of them voice out their realpolitik viewpoints in the safety of their privileged circumstances - like Nicollo Machiavelli himself. (That's why he, mearsheimer, always say, not verbatim: "I'm very happy I'm living in (the most powerful) liberal democratic country - which ironically is a product of idealism, ...but when it comes to international relations...- he's a realist)
His and his et al's IR Old World 19th century Machiavellian realpolitik viewpoint...
...actually HAS to die,...
... WE, THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE ALL KNOW IT IN OUR HEARTS IT HAS TO DIE, "YESTERDAY", hundreds, even thousands of years ago...
... And I think deep inside his (mearsheimer et al's) heart he knows it. But like all (socio) realists, he doesn't have the COURAGE to admit it...because he doesn't have the courage to BE against it (PREVAILING human CONSTRUCTED reality)... And his realist thinking is greatly influenced by his privileged personal situation: a legal citizen of the most powerful nation in the world, and all the privileges and personal SAFETY, it entails.
What differentiates a realist from an idealist?
COURAGE and Empathy for the rest of YOUR human race.
Courage to DESIRE, ENVISION AND USE YOUR GREAT MIND, to PERPETUALLY make things better than what they are, than JUST cowardly accept the social constructs that our physical/biological/historical reality socially CONSTRUCTED for us.
Clue: if it's constructed, it can be DE-constructed or changed.
If only idealists would stay home: let's not forget who the real aggressor is:
Master List of US Aggression
By William Blum
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti *2004
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
@@victoews6842
Idealist DOESN'T mean pro-EVERYTHING-US or democratic West.
Idealism means making things better than what they are at every moment, first, by not accepting the shortcomings or imperfections of physical and social constructed realities, and second, by perpetually finding ways to make them better.
...(?)
@@victoews6842
If idealists "stayed home", then there wouldn't be a nation with an elected leader (cuz the ubiquitous reality then were kingdoms and empires), or state sanctioned slavery and gender inequalities would still be the dominant realities.
In the context of it being May 2022:
... there is a strip of land, above North Korea, between China and the sea, that is Russian. It almost looks like the coast line there is in direct line of site with a part of Japan's coast line. Also, sort of in a direct line across the ocean with the US/ Canadian border to the East, with Moscow across land to the west, and with Australia down to the south.
A stupid idea ... how much would Russia want for that land in part along side Japan and directly above North Korea, and bordering it, say up to the highest level of the top border of China and at an angle, guesstimate 45°, to draw a line to the coast?
That strip of land above North Korea along China, if bought, as US permanent soil (not property owned by US yet within Russia, but, sort of not unlike how Alaska became a state of the US?)? ... nearness to Japan, Taiwan, obviously, South Korea ... it seems not unreasonable, as a portion for Russia to actually consider it and possibly accept it ... any more than that though, might be pushing things too much. It seems like psychologically, an area that mirrored Australia in size would be the limit, and certainly more, like, yeah, no way in the world today. ... Would it make things worse, if there were US bases permanently there. Is it a bad strategic idea for the US? I don't know.
What is more important: to make Putin pay and cripple Russia and therefore potentially providing an opening for Putin and Russia to, in effect, become ruled by China and be China - extending China into Euroasia and Europe, up to Ukraine's borders and increasing China's land based resources (like rare earth minerals, coal, oil, access to the arctic), production e.t.c.? ... Or ... for the EU (which essentially also includes the US, UK, e.t.c.) to stop squabbling and infighting, which is resource intensive, putting the whole world at risk, risking the start of WWIII, and which is literally destroying those purported to be in need of protection and being protected, to instead to form an alliance with Russia? ... wouldn't that open a gateway for diplomacy and trade with Euroasia and or the Middle East (Russia is part of Europe and Eurasia, as Turkey is part of Europe and the Middle East)? ... If Turkey and Georgia were part of the EU and EU had an alliance or special alliance with Russia ... how would the globe look then? .... proportionally, EU/UK/US compared with China/(Russia) or EU/UK/US/Russia compared with China?
I still think Crimea sort of looks like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth. If it became the official EU capital, it would certainly allow the borders of the story to be told from a different perspective ... the outer would become the inner and the inner the outer ... the light, attraction, pull, would be on the middle, Crimea and the current centres would become the peripherals ... with periphery scenes for clandestine meetings in support of or to undermine the middle ... at any rate, it seems like migration would more likely be to where the light and the voice box is ...
I don't know.
Short version:
... where is the current fighting? ... what is it over ... exactly ...? ... it doesn't look like it might cease any time soon. ... Would it be impossible, in that area, to convert the type ... of war ... from war of might to war of words?
i.e. Ukraine retain sovereignty, possibly join the EU, a section of Ukraine (with Ukraine's permission) become the de jure capital of the EU, a buffer area that is Ukraine and Russia
... NATO headquarters remain where they are ... ?
and, ... which agreement already assures Ukraines borders?
This wouldn't support military goals, with less negative impact on civilians than sanctions or lending/giving military equipment*, and or contribute to long term security, safety and lives of military personnel?
*military equipment (that might get scavenged/reverse engineered/sent elsewhere/on sold and or seized? ... and an increased risk, that, doesn't seem like it would be impossible to forsee: friendly fire, and, fingers point, as if otherwise?).
... distance of Ukraine ... possible EU de jure capital, international embassies ... Iranian oil ... ?
... if a section of Ukraine (with Ukraine's permission) becomes the de jure capital of the EU ... the US would need an embassy there ... as would the UK and Russia and e.t.c. ...
also,
... de jure capital of EU in Ukraine ... seems like there would be more cameras there then ....
... who can assist with knowledge and wisdom, to turn it into a historic moment? ... peaceful? ...
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
At a distance, it seems like Steve Chapman could get away with looking like John Mearsheimer.
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
From the middle of elsewhere:
In addition (particulars aside) though, it sound like it is important not to loose sight of other parties concerns and possible conflict, that might otherwise become as if not heard or recognised, from not also paying attention to a wider multifaceted perspective?
It really seems like, not every thing is clear cut - some things exist because of light, shade and shadows, and perspective: as a comparative type example, from one of many other possibilities: if a buffer is thought of as a human shield, bearing weight of force, then, that scenario might be considered hard lined and reprehensible. If on the other hand a buffer is thought of as a graduated, transition area, a zone or blend, where some people feel comfortable (even though you might not feel comfortable there, those people feel comfortable), and like translators of culture and understanding, then, that scenario might be considered vibrant and diverse. Given therefore, only that description and comparison, which scenario does a buffer comes across as, bearing weight of force? (to change things, of concerns, e.t.c.)?
Also, if someone is forced to join a democratic society quickly, is that democratic? They wouldn't get blinded by choice, be overwhelmed, become frustrated, and from that bad experience, not necessarily feel they are part of a democratic society and fail to grasp what it is to be part of a democratic society? ... I don't know ...
How about, the role of the internet? Where does it begin, where does it end? Is it discretely subdivided or continuous? Is it more part of admiralty, or space, or international, national, corporate, private, public, a utility, catalogue, publisher, telecommunications, distribution network, e.t.c.?
... international relations aren't, international? ... international politics isn't, international? ...
Is it, that what is being sought, is national theories of international politics?
Does it make as much sense, or more sense, or less sense, than international theories of national politics?
It seems that, international politics, could be another national category: national politics of international politics, equivalent to saying, national politics of US politics, or, national politics of China politics, or, national politics of Turkish politics, or, e.t.c. ?
Therefore, theories of international politics, by definition, would be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of the international nation? Either, the US, and China, and Turkey, and, e.t.c., together form, a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, or, they don't, and, distinct from, say, being a union of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states?
"China and Academia, what they want, John Mearsheimer" (International Relations & Politics)
It sounds like, within IR theory:
As part of Mearsheimer's 5 Assumptions:
In an IR field, nations' internal national politics - are not significant and can also be significant:
a) for the most part can be treated as having a negligible effect.
b) under certain circumstances treated as having a non-negligible effect.
A dispute, occurring under different circumstances: in the middle of international waters, or, in extending an economic exclusion zone into either another economic exclusion zone or into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not).
In a dispute that occurs in the middle of international waters, internal national politics of a nation, would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible.
In a dispute extending an economic exclusion zone into another another economic exclusion zone, then, internal national politics of nations involved would appear not to be significant and also significant, negligible and non-negligible - an additional nation, whose economic exclusion zone not affected, although, changes might alter agreements for passage, that additional nation's national politics would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible - or, if into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not), internal national politics of nations involved might be not dissimilar to that of additional nation.
It looks like, in all those scenarios, it possible to simultaneously act as a part of nation and as part of an international nation.
If all nations were in a union, then, it seems like, in that situation, there might not be an international nation to be a part of, as all nations would belong to the same overall nation, governed by the same rules. Although, it might seem like it is not possible for an international nation to form, distinct from other nations and distinct from a union of nations, from within a union of nations, it might not be impossible.
Let's say that, there is a union called, Earth Nation, and every and all nations belong to it - it is all of the planet earth. Any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all nations. For example, Earth Nation might be responsible for deciding, if the moon is part of Earth Nation (or not), and if so, also assuming the moon is colonised and it wants to mooxit from Earth Nation, any negotiations for that mooxit.
Now, let's say Earth Nation is responsible for the internet and any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all for the internet. As an example, a rule might be that, all will be identified on Earth Nation internet, in the same way they are within the union that is Earth Nation, by each individual nation they are a citizen of.
Another rule, might be the recognition of an international nation and each individual nation on Earth Nation internet, and, all individuals of Earth Nation on the internet, not to be restricted from being able to participate in more than a nation, and, their citizenship and or where they are resident to be publicly displayed in any individual nation as a rule.
Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for an individual nation of the internet, would be determined by that individual nation and be applicable in that individual nation but not necessarily in each and every individual nation or the international nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated.
Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for the international nation of the internet, would be determined together by any individual nation participating and be applicable in the international nation, but not necessarily in each and every individual nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated.
So, if a US citizen, entered the UK nation on the internet, no matter where they lived, it would not be obvious, whether they were a UK citizen or not and or resident or not, but, would have to follow UK rules there and US rules would not apply - if in the UK nation on the internet, then it taken to be as if in the UK. If that same US citizen entered the International nation on the internet, then, it might show that it is a US citizen belonging to the US nation that they are participating, together with others, in forming the composition of that international nation, however, again, US rules would not apply, and would have to follow international rules.
Now, take a mainstream media video and comment section: it could be accessed in UK nation or International nation, but, it would be accessed from different places and the rules may or may not be different. Say for example, a rule of the international nation, that comment sections are to be treated as a town square. It wouldn't matter which nation a person was a citizen of or resident. When commenting in a comment section of a mainstream media video in the international nation, no matter where a person physically in the world, if in the international nation internet section, and the rule, comment sections are to be treated as a town square, and they choose to comment there, then, it is to be taken that commening there is as if doing so in a town square. On the other hand, when commenting in a comment section of that same mainstream media video in the UK nation, the rule might be that it is to be treated as a private function at a venue.
The choice, the risk, the benefits, upto individual internet users. If an individual does not feel comfortable with or familiar with rules on the internet of a nation they live in, then, they might choose not to comment in that nation's corresponding internet nation. Some individuals might feel comfortable the most, where they are actually a citizen, while others might find they spend most of their time in the international nation.
It doesn't sort of look like, it is not impossible for there to be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of an international nation? ... a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, and, distinct from, say, being a union of nations, of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states?
Don't mind me, I should be sleeping proper in the now ... I'll have to check what I've written later ...
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
New comments won't stay ... they disappear, on yt ... and my linkedin posts ... I can't access them ...
Fb was ... maybe ... see if I can share this there ...
Short version:
Significance of the US Constitution: in the US; outside the US.
Significance of other parts of the world having their own constitution: to that part of the world; to the US.
Significance of a Constitution in cohesion, flexibility, peace, competition, being kept accountable: from an internal point of view; from an external point of view.
Examples:
- an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"
- framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA.
-"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, ... "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention."
- if EU invested in coming up with their own Constitution.
- the ability to converse with others based on their own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (your) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c.
- the ability to converse with others based on your own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (our) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c.
Crimea doesn't sort of look like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth?
....................
Example:
Part of a conversation on fb:
A reply:
Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"!
That ain't rocket science!
, "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"!
That ain't rocket science!"
... that came from?
The reply:
Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere.
Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it!
People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples!
A reply:
Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish!
"end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination"
, that hasn't happened in history?
... how do people spread killer viruses?
A reply:
"Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!"
, not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs?
, almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist?
... also, seems a bit authoritarian.
... this is part of the Australian Constitution ....
Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament.
Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and,
(xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)"
(Australian Parliament House, website)
and,
... this is part of the Australian Constitution ....
Chapter V: The States
Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion")
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
(Australian Parliament House, website)
(While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... )
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
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
I'm sorry, this is not on topic and probably sounds almost pathetic, however, somehow, I've got no one to talk with. Would it be too difficult to organise a sort of conversation pal mentor?
3:45 min ... "two-way conversation ... "
3:57 min ... "how to reach that ... audience in ways that are different ... "
4:18 min ...
4:23 min ...
"Joseph Nye on the Future of Soft Power and Public Diplomacy" (USC Annenberg)
"Soft power scholar Joseph Nye discusses the new challenges faced by public diplomacy prac... "
There's also a ted talk that says isolation is a dream killer or something like that, and Harvard has researched something not dissimilar over a long term, as in, like 80 years.
So, what a good idea, to reach out, and, in that spirit, would it be ridiculous if ...
I feel like going, what the hey ...
Would it be ridiculous if a person who is able to contact someone trustworthy and knowledgeable facilitated contact, so that I have a person to talk with ... ? Is that too much to ask?
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
I can't get through to any one, as in, can't actually reach anyone to be able to establish raport, have two way communication, make contacts or to maintain, e.t.c. ... (and this is Australia)
... things are not ok ... everything is not ok ...
I'm literally barely getting through, isolated, no washing machine ... struggling ... medical physical condition ...
... yes ... haven't seen my primary school aged daughter since 2018 ... in disbelief ...
... yeah ...
... time it can't be traced ...
To put things in perspective, I'm divorced (since 2018), met my now x-husband in 1999 at uni, ... and, no, I'm not a youth or young adult ... there is no 'o' or 't' or 't' at the start of my age on paper, haven't been able to get in contact with a trustworthy lawyer ... haven't seen my primary school aged daughter for three/four years (since 2018) or establish contact with ...
I've not had much success with tele communication in general, it seems, and physically (a combination of medical: systemic like arthritis and various, and, lack of everyday resources: living on camping gear and is not having a washing machine in Australia sort of like OHS being disregarded?) and financially stuck (unemployed), in a temporary place I didn't want to move into, that is owned by my x- husband's parents. I'm stuck.
Despite the rumours, I have no plans to leave this earth ... climbing into a small capsule which is part of a rocket to then be blasted against gravity into the vacuum of space ... yeah, I know: what is wrong with me, right? ...
Having said that ... a mentor, in general, from any (as long as it's above board) sphere of life, would be appreciated - I'm needing to start as if from scratch in all areas and could do with a little bit of guidance/advice, from possibly not just one type of mentor (like for practical life guidance, career, ... e.t.c.).
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
0417 579 364
eleonorawithcharlotte g mail
('Charlotte', in my email address, is my daughter's name.)
Although, not sure what is happening with emails I send.
Sent an email to news sky ... don't know if it got there ...
... eleonorawithcharlotte g mail ...
My comments (yesterday/earlier today) are not staying anywhere on yt ... they disappear within about 17 to 30 seconds or straight away, on first refresh or while editing and it then unavailable to post or ... problem with server [404] ... and, fb has been blanket disabling comment functions on fb at times ... with failed to post and '!' symbol ... also, not sure what has happened to my linkedin account ..."Sorry, we couldn’t find that post. Let’s try again… Retry" ... "Something went wrong. We're having issues loading the page. Go to your feed" ... "This profile is not available. Retry" ...
Hall Jeffrey Brown Dorothy Lewis Sharon
It seems to me the Dr's somewhat tunneled vision geopolitical views are widened by some wishful thinking.
Your intro is already too long
THANK YOU RUSSIA THANK YOU MR PUTIN FOR STANDING UP AGAINST FASCISTS ONCE AGAIN
Where did he stand up ? Dictators stand up for their own life not for anyone else. No one in his sane mind would appreciate Putin.
We can only hope!
@@kirstinstrand6292 You’re joking right?! What you an ISIS sympathizer as well?!
Now the Russian example have come to fruition. You poked and cornered the BIG BEAR so much it will fight back and attack you .....HAHAHA
This bear don't got no bite.
Putin is an imperialist who constantly attacks other countries on all levels. So he either conqueres his neighbour's, turn thrm in puppet regimes or harasses them.
Is John Mearsheimer's basic premise correct that all great powers are basically evil, will not tolerate any competition correct and invade those who do not bow to them? If it is wrong, then all the arguments he presented are flawed.
Nice strawman you got there burning, kid. ;-)
It's not evil to seek security. Morality doesn't apply when it comes to great power politics, because it is impossible to confirm benign intentions indefinitely. Country A cannot assume that country B will always be benevolent due to whatever the current flavor of morality is. Morality can change, leadership can change, etc. So instead you have to work with what is verifiable, namely balance of power.
Really, if you want to take this path to counter his argument your first step will be explaining how most of history disagrees with you and agrees with him. Most of the academics who disagree with him don't do so because balance of power politics isn't real, they do so because they fervently hope we live in a world that has left balance of power politics behind. Unfortunately that isn't the case, as evidenced by the behaviors of the US, Russia, and China in today's world. The only reason it looks like Western Europe has left balance of power politics behind is because they have the US as the night watchman.
@@jlpowell51 Night watchman? Nah. It's all rather out in the open. No conspiracies here.
@@lepidoptera9337 What are you talking about? Night watchman isn't a conspiracy. It's the peacekeeper who adds hierarchy to an otherwise anarchical system. If America can be relied upon---and they could---to come to the aid of NATO members whose existence was threatened then those NATO members no longer had to play balance of power politics.
@@jlpowell51 Which NATO member is being threatened? :-)
I admire John’s knowledge and wisdom tremendously, but I strongly disagree with his talk around the 6th minute mark. Try to listen to it and see what he said: “No one would be foolish enough to use it”!! I can give you at least 3 countries who have demented leaders and would use it! One of them who has promised to use it if they have it! Iran is that country, and they have been quite explicit about what they would do with it. Remember the Wipe Israel Off the Face Of The World statement? That was an Official statement. Then you’ve crazies like Putin and N.Korean Rocket man! Both have threatened to use them.
No they won't, it would really help when Americans actually speak Farsi or other languages and actually study other cultures snd live abroad and learn about the world.
I think you're just engaging in hysterics
@@TorianTammas what does Americans ability to speak Farsi has to do with what I said?! Are you high on something? Please pay attention to what John said in regards to no one being crazy enough to use nukes. And I said sir, you are mistaken because we have crazies back home trying to develop a warhead to do just that. Where do you think all those rockets launched over Israel come from? You think Hezbollah manufactures them? Pls when you don’t know about the subject matter don’t make stupid comments! It just pisses me off even more!
@@rashid8646 Ok Rashid, you’re right! Keep sticking your head in the sand! Live in your fantasy world!
Esto es rasismo.danino
yet another crazy doctor... His analysis lacks foundations and considers his assumptions as valid axioms for human thinking. A speculative theorist at best who lacks scientific onsight. Not the type of guy to consider as an advisor (maybe for the type of shoes you want to buy...).
This is gibberish... read the book "Myth of the Nuclear Revolution" by Keir Lieber, a prominent Georgetown University scholar who makes these arguments with historic evidence, and who Mearsheimer was a mentor to.
Comman.sence could be really common.at times yes 😮😮😮