He's talking about post-cold war policies enacted by American and western liberalism! In a sense he's right. USA cannot control Asia. You were referring to a different time that is guided by hardline policies enacted by McCarthyism and others. Completely different era!
@@diansumiskum6773 Thank you, but I know what he is talking about. What about Taiwan and all of the US military bases in Asia. US has 750 overseas military bases in 80 countries, from which around 220 in Asia. US is and always was an Empire bent on hegemony. US is not interested in freedom and democracy but resources and subjugation to US interests. In other words “financial and military colonialism”.
@@Game-Boy. You are not wrong sir, those are a product of a different time. I am merely defending the speaker perspective based on recent policies. I agree that the US is an empire bent on hegemony! Exerting dominance or influence over others? Yes. Control? No. We would do the same thing if we are a superpower!
Bagian 1: Pengantar dan Definisi Realisme (0:00 - 2:22) Pengantar: Pembawa acara memperkenalkan Profesor Stephen Walt dan topik diskusi, yaitu realisme dalam hubungan internasional. (2:23 - 5:15) Definisi Realisme: Profesor Walt mendefinisikan realisme sebagai pendekatan terhadap urusan internasional yang didasarkan pada asumsi bahwa politik harus dipelajari sebagaimana adanya, bukan sebagaimana yang kita inginkan. Realisme menekankan pentingnya keamanan negara, kekuatan relatif, dan sifat kompetitif politik internasional.
Professor Stephen Walt, a prominent figure in the field of international relations at Harvard University, discusses key points of realism in foreign policy. He argues that the U.S. does not need to control Asia but must ensure that no other power dominates the region. Walt critiques the continuity across U.S. administrations in foreign policy, particularly highlighting the unintended consequences of trying to maintain global leadership. He underscores the importance of recognizing the limits of American influence and the complexity of international relations, where various powers have significant stakes. The discussion also covers the failures of the two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, suggesting a lack of balanced pressure on both sides has hindered progress. Walt’s insights reflect a realist perspective on the challenges of achieving a peaceful and secure international order, emphasizing the necessity of pragmatic and balanced strategies.
Really appreciated the content! It would also be nice if this channel could also voice thoughts and figures from other part of the world. It would be nice, say, to know how China is thinking? how Europe is thinking? how Arab world is thinking? and other parts of the world as well. The Spotlight in US and Indonesia have been really nice but diversity would also be appriciated.
The US politicians/scholars/media should realize before the US was founded, there was a peaceful and prosperous period during Silk Road. That's what the world wants. The world doesn't want wars, unrests, and hatred. It doesn't matter what fancy terms this scholar says, the US basically repeats what the British did as imperialists/colonialists.
Stephen Walt sounds dangerously optimistic about the challenges China faces to become a regional hegemon, and underestimates the challenges US faces to execute on offshore balancing strategy. What Stephen Walt discusses about US strategy is a double edge sword. Yes you can make it such that there is no hegemon in Asia, but so too can China make it such that the US is no longer a hegemon of most parts of the world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ given that most countries have a policy of non-alignment. The world would look increasingly multipolar, something that China would probably call a success in their playbook. A digital currency system would exist as an alternative to the financial network established and largely controlled by the US, although I myself is skeptical about whether such a system would be stable enough, but hey never bet against China.
I find the statement started at 12:41 to be very intriguing. All the elected presidents of the US said they were going to do “less” and it was popular to many Americans, but when they do otherwise when they were in the position. Perhaps any theory can explain this phenomenon? I believe the US is not the only country which has been experienced this.
Not a theory. John Mearsheimer says it many times. Foreign affairs in USA is the domain of elites, academics, think tanks and law firms representing interest groups. They influence how congressmen and the State Department thinks. By and large they promote the same worldview, policies and strategies but come in either shades of Republicans or Democrats. Barak Obama called them ‘the blob’ in his exit interview. Examples of people who actively promoted that groupthink include Condoleeza Rice, Hilary Clinton, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, among others. Some are more overt in their advocacy for oil company interests and war; others are more discreet in their advocacy for war and regime change. But they all think similarly and dictate what US foreign policy is and what the State department does.
In fact, if I follow the political realism logic, I would assume that, after admitting that there's no international authority, there's always still one authority and it's the one that have the major influence or political assets for that specific moment.
Bagian 2: Kebijakan Luar Negeri Amerika di Era Unipolar (5:16 - 8:10) Penggunaan Kekuatan Amerika: Diskusi beralih ke bagaimana Amerika Serikat telah menggunakan kekuatannya dalam beberapa dekade terakhir, dengan Profesor Walt berpendapat bahwa AS tidak selalu menggunakan kekuatannya dengan bijak, terutama setelah Perang Dingin. (8:11 - 11:55) Hegemoni Liberal dan Kebangkitan Trump: Profesor Walt membahas konsep "hegemoni liberal" dan bagaimana hal itu dianut oleh pemerintahan Clinton, Bush, dan Obama, yang mengarah pada kegagalan kebijakan luar negeri dan kebangkitan Donald Trump.
Bagian 6: Iran dan Dinamika Kekuatan Regional (46:01 - 49:20) Keheningan Strategis Iran: Diskusi beralih ke Iran dan tanggapannya yang terukur terhadap serangan Israel, dengan menyoroti pendekatan pragmatis Teheran. (49:21 - 52:30) Motivasi dan Minat Iran: Profesor Walt menganalisis motivasi Iran dalam konteks regional yang lebih luas, dengan menekankan keinginan untuk diakui dan diikutsertakan.
Bagian 7: Asia, Strategi Penyeimbangan Lepas Pantai, dan Kesimpulan (52:31 - 56:30) Ambisi Cina dan Dinamika Asia: Percakapan beralih ke Asia, di mana Profesor Walt membahas ambisi Cina untuk dominasi regional dan tanggapan dari negara-negara tetangga. (56:31 - 59:30) Menyeimbangkan Lepas Pantai dan Peran Amerika: Profesor Walt menganjurkan strategi "penyeimbangan lepas pantai" untuk Amerika Serikat di Asia, dengan menekankan pentingnya kemitraan dan pencegahan.
(59:31 - 60:00) Kesimpulan: Wawancara diakhiri dengan Profesor Walt mengulangi argumen utamanya dan menekankan perlunya pendekatan yang realistis dan pragmatis terhadap urusan internasional.
Bagian 4: Rusia, Cina, dan Tatanan Multipolar yang Berkembang (20:31 - 24:00) Tantangan Multipolaritas: Diskusi beralih ke tantangan yang ditimbulkan oleh tatanan multipolar yang berkembang, dengan fokus pada keselarasan Rusia-Cina dan implikasinya bagi Amerika Serikat.
(24:01 - 28:00) Perluasan NATO dan Kebangkitan Rusia: Profesor Walt membahas perluasan NATO dan bagaimana hal itu berkontribusi pada memburuknya hubungan dengan Rusia, yang mengarah pada krisis Ukraina.
Il limite del realismo è di equiparare i comportamenti, in questo modo li semplifica e fa sembrare siano gli stessi. Così non è. Non si possono sovrapporre realtà diverse, culture diverse, epoche diverse, quindi supporre quale sia la volontà dei cinesi equivale a dire che sia la stessa degli americani, come se la volontà fosse unica, la stessa per tutti nel tempo e nello spazio.
The promise of satan is but cheating, with consequences in the form of people’s suffering, suffering of humanity, and with the punishment Of God in this world and especially in the next world which is eternal!
I think Steph got it 180 degree wrong on what it would take to solve the Palestine question. Actually the only way a problem like this gets solved, is to address the asymmetry of power that exists between Israel and Palestine by the imposition of an external more powerful entity that guarantees the weak power. What we have had since the 1940s is that Israel always had absolute power while Palestine only had occasional goodwill of people. The day the US says No more to Israel is the day it will face the reality of its situation and have no choice but to make peace.
Bagian 3: Kegagalan Kebijakan Luar Negeri dan Peran "The Blob" (11:56 - 14:58) Kegagalan Kebijakan yang Berkelanjutan: Diskusi tentang apakah ada kelanjutan dari kegagalan kebijakan luar negeri di bawah pemerintahan Biden, dan potensi dampaknya terhadap pemilihan presiden 2024. (14:59 - 17:40) Kesenjangan antara Opini Publik dan Kebijakan: Profesor Walt membahas perbedaan yang terus-menerus antara opini publik Amerika tentang kebijakan luar negeri dan tindakan yang diambil oleh para presiden.
(17:41 - 20:30) The Blob dan Munculnya Suara-suara Baru: Percakapan menyentuh "The Blob," istilah yang digunakan untuk menggambarkan истеблишмен kebijakan luar negeri Amerika, dan munculnya suara-suara baru yang menantang konsensus yang ada.
Pa Gita wiryawan klw podcast dengan orang asing tolong dong di translate , klw dengan bhs inggris , banyak orang ngga bisa bhs inggris tp podcast nya di tayangkan di indonesia ? gimana nih
Hadn't heard Walt speak before. Apart from Mearsheimer most US foreign policiy, IR academics and practitioners sound naive and out of touch at best or self-absorbed, dishonest and unwitting.
Bagian 5: Konflik Israel-Palestina dan Jalan Menuju Normalisasi (28:01 - 31:40) Kegagalan Proses Oslo: Percakapan beralih ke konflik Israel-Palestina, dengan Profesor Walt mengkritik peran Amerika Serikat dalam kegagalan proses Oslo.
(31:41 - 35:50) Solusi Dua Negara dan Realitas Politik: Profesor Walt mengekspresikan pesimismenya tentang kelangsungan hidup solusi dua negara dan membahas tantangan yang melekat dalam mencapai penyelesaian yang langgeng. (35:51 - 39:45) Peran Lobi Israel: Diskusi tentang pengaruh lobi Israel terhadap kebijakan AS terhadap Timur Tengah dan potensi perubahan dalam dinamika ini.
(39:46 - 43:40) Menuju Negara Satu atau Apartheid: Profesor Walt mengeksplorasi kemungkinan hasil konflik, termasuk negara apartheid, negara bi-nasional, dan implikasinya. (43:41 - 46:00) Abraham Accords dan Normalisasi: Percakapan membahas Abraham Accords dan prospek normalisasi yang lebih luas antara Israel dan negara-negara Arab, dengan menyoroti pertimbangan Saudi.
Walt's speculation of what China wants to do in Asia is still purely US centered, there is no understanding at all the increasingly intense military encirclement and targeting of the US have caused China to be concerned with its security. The US military flies 4+ surveillance sorties near China on average everyday, warship/aircraft carriers/submarines all within very close distance to China coast, doing whatever they like--they also get Australia, Canada and recently Netherland airplanes/ships to do the same. US provokes conflicts via proxies like the PH and Taiwan, constantly playing the separatist card with Tibet and Xinjiang. It orchestrated and funded the 2019 HK riot--casting HK in the black terror of violence, then sanction HK and trying to wreck HK. Unilateral sanctioning and wanton embargo/tariffs against China only b/c it wants to slow down China (b/c it's no longer competitive)--really a despicable shameless bully, I don't think Asians in general are that bad. "Playing hardball with Australia"? it's completely ridiculous--Scott Morrison was banning Huawei and attacking China even ahead of the US, China being its largest customer, representing more than 40% of its exports, Walt expects CN to roll over and whimper? Even a relatively moderate voice can't see what it is--they never see what they did and the reaction it causes, it's always others' fault, the US is indeed a malignant tumor. China never invaded any of its neighbors (two border disputes with Vietnam and India were 45 years ago and PLA retreated right away) for 2000 years, 12 out of 14 border disputes were settled amicably through generous offer on the part of CN by 2012, the 13th with Bhutan was settled last year. The only one left is India, who rejected China's generous offer to settle 4 times b/c they won't give any (they only want to take). I have no idea why Americans can never see historical track record, maybe b/c they have no history. China wants to be left alone, develop and build, make things and innovate, happily doing business with everyone, it never even wanted to challenge the US--it's the US' hostility that has forced China to adopt a defensive stance.
It seems that the long-suppressed desire for war, when an opportunity arises, might lead to conflicts in various locations. Hopefully, China will play a significant role and take responsibility in Asia. Consider what happened in Europe since Russia’s actions
Lebih baik melanjutkan dan mengajak negara lain untuk menuntut Deklarasi Kemerdekaan Israel dan Undang Undang Bangsa-Negara mereka daripada two state solutions. Bersyukur kepada pahlawan nasional, Proklamasi dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Indonesia ngga aneh2.
Realism should be a part of the discussions. It could have done good in places like Irak. Still, some aspects of this "realism" are disgusting. One of its huge faults is that it fails to give agency to any but superpowers. If the Baltic countries want to be a part of the west, that is up to them. The only reason top deny them is if Russia was so threatening that it could harm the rest of the west if we adopted the Baltics. The current Russia can't do that, and has no prospect of being able to do this in the future. All we have to do with Russia is to convince Putin he is a dead man if he uses nuclear weapons. That is the single thing we need from Russia. I'm surprised a realist would recognize the rights of the Palestinians. That is very far from the realpolitik that realism is associated with. It seems Walt mostly just has a big heart for US enemies. :)
But that's the core of realism, that weaker nations have no real agency precisely because they have no power to define their own fate. Realism also states that there are ways they could survive, which is to join the major powers or try to be neutral. That Baltic states deciding to join the west under US' protection is a manifestation of the former. Some realists argue that those states should take the latter path, but it's a different topic entirely.
@@carlcramer9269 Well, one may very well assign a theory as evil but it's not an ideology like the "Aryan supremacy" of old, for example. The merit of a social theory (not unlike a physical theory such as Newton's theory of gravity in a different context) is how it could predict future events. In this case, realism was successful in predicting China's rise against the US (despite what the liberals hoped for). Realism in a narrow sense does concern itself mainly with great power politics as you alluded, and doesn't really think what the weaker powers do. It's the limitation of the theory which realists do accept.
@@hitthedeck4115 Yeah, I should have put "evil" in air quotes. Its not that realism is evil, it is just that it is very self-centered and fitted to the needs of a "weak" or unengaged superpower that has to bargain with itself on which of its interests to commit to. I don't see much need for this kind of half-measures against Russia. Its a different matter vs. China, but by the same token China is a more serious threat to the global order. Choices, choices.
The Ukrainian mobilization by the EU "high moral standards" looks like close borders and hunting for fresh meat everywhere and every day in Ukraine. There are thousands of videos of fighting in the streets, and there are no men at all in some villages. Cemeteries are huge
Pak Gita, tolong andai2kan bagaimana bisa ketika Nabi Isa AS turun dari langit, pajak dunia bisa terhapuskan… coba dijelaskan Pak Gita menurut pikiran anda, terimakasih.
With the United States, what is the need for the United Nations? Will everyone listen to you? Unfortunately, you are only for your own interests. How many people are willing to listen to you?
Love John J and Stephen W. Such professional and refreshing voices to listen to.
Lets go, I love John but we never get to hear from Stephen Walt as much. He needs to get out more
“U.S. doesn’t try to control Asia” that is an understatement of all understatements. What about Korean War, Vietnam War……
Don't forget Jakarta method too.
He's talking about post-cold war policies enacted by American and western liberalism! In a sense he's right. USA cannot control Asia. You were referring to a different time that is guided by hardline policies enacted by McCarthyism and others. Completely different era!
@@diansumiskum6773 Not McCarthyism but Soviet Union ex. Cuba, '73 Chile, Nicaragua and El Salvador
@@diansumiskum6773 Thank you, but I know what he is talking about. What about Taiwan and all of the US military bases in Asia. US has 750 overseas military bases in 80 countries, from which around 220 in Asia. US is and always was an Empire bent on hegemony. US is not interested in freedom and democracy but resources and subjugation to US interests. In other words “financial and military colonialism”.
@@Game-Boy. You are not wrong sir, those are a product of a different time. I am merely defending the speaker perspective based on recent policies.
I agree that the US is an empire bent on hegemony! Exerting dominance or influence over others? Yes. Control? No.
We would do the same thing if we are a superpower!
Very insightful and thoughtful discussion! Thanks very much for the series
Walt and Mearsheimer are the best political scientist on international politics. ❤
Bagian 1: Pengantar dan Definisi Realisme
(0:00 - 2:22) Pengantar: Pembawa acara memperkenalkan Profesor Stephen Walt dan topik diskusi, yaitu realisme dalam hubungan internasional.
(2:23 - 5:15) Definisi Realisme: Profesor Walt mendefinisikan realisme sebagai pendekatan terhadap urusan internasional yang didasarkan pada asumsi bahwa politik harus dipelajari sebagaimana adanya, bukan sebagaimana yang kita inginkan. Realisme menekankan pentingnya keamanan negara, kekuatan relatif, dan sifat kompetitif politik internasional.
Professor Stephen Walt, a prominent figure in the field of international relations at Harvard University, discusses key points of realism in foreign policy. He argues that the U.S. does not need to control Asia but must ensure that no other power dominates the region.
Walt critiques the continuity across U.S. administrations in foreign policy, particularly highlighting the unintended consequences of trying to maintain global leadership. He underscores the importance of recognizing the limits of American influence and the complexity of international relations, where various powers have significant stakes.
The discussion also covers the failures of the two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, suggesting a lack of balanced pressure on both sides has hindered progress. Walt’s insights reflect a realist perspective on the challenges of achieving a peaceful and secure international order, emphasizing the necessity of pragmatic and balanced strategies.
Prof walt is one of the best ir scholars alive
Really appreciated the content! It would also be nice if this channel could also voice thoughts and figures from other part of the world. It would be nice, say, to know how China is thinking? how Europe is thinking? how Arab world is thinking? and other parts of the world as well. The Spotlight in US and Indonesia have been really nice but diversity would also be appriciated.
I agree with you, with that we can see other perspective and the disscuse will be balance.
Totally agree!
I watched all of your interviews with John Mearsheimer.
The US politicians/scholars/media should realize before the US was founded, there was a peaceful and prosperous period during Silk Road. That's what the world wants. The world doesn't want wars, unrests, and hatred. It doesn't matter what fancy terms this scholar says, the US basically repeats what the British did as imperialists/colonialists.
The silk war was only quite peaceful during Mongol rule....
The Belt Road Initiative is on going. Hopefully, it will be a good diplomation, not a war this time.
Perfect episode! Thanks a lot sir! 👏🏻
Stephen Walt sounds dangerously optimistic about the challenges China faces to become a regional hegemon, and underestimates the challenges US faces to execute on offshore balancing strategy.
What Stephen Walt discusses about US strategy is a double edge sword. Yes you can make it such that there is no hegemon in Asia, but so too can China make it such that the US is no longer a hegemon of most parts of the world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ given that most countries have a policy of non-alignment.
The world would look increasingly multipolar, something that China would probably call a success in their playbook. A digital currency system would exist as an alternative to the financial network established and largely controlled by the US, although I myself is skeptical about whether such a system would be stable enough, but hey never bet against China.
Perfect and Marvelous Explanation.
I find the statement started at 12:41 to be very intriguing. All the elected presidents of the US said they were going to do “less” and it was popular to many Americans, but when they do otherwise when they were in the position. Perhaps any theory can explain this phenomenon? I believe the US is not the only country which has been experienced this.
Inconsistency?
Not a theory. John Mearsheimer says it many times. Foreign affairs in USA is the domain of elites, academics, think tanks and law firms representing interest groups. They influence how congressmen and the State Department thinks. By and large they promote the same worldview, policies and strategies but come in either shades of Republicans or Democrats. Barak Obama called them ‘the blob’ in his exit interview.
Examples of people who actively promoted that groupthink include Condoleeza Rice, Hilary Clinton, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, among others. Some are more overt in their advocacy for oil company interests and war; others are more discreet in their advocacy for war and regime change. But they all think similarly and dictate what US foreign policy is and what the State department does.
Gita, if you are in Boston, you need to meet Jonathan Kirshner. A different kind of realism
bagaimana cara pak Gita menghadirkan orang orang hebat seperti ini bukan pekerjaan mudah melobi nya..
Beliau ngajar di Stanford
@@irabakri2662betul, beliau jadi dosen tamu di bagian Asia-pacific research center.
Iya, bangga sih ada orang indo yg bisa punya akses ke orang2 hebat.
Very good conversation. Could have been even longer.
Realism is when you are a thief and murderer and you think everyone must be a thief and murderer.
In fact, if I follow the political realism logic, I would assume that, after admitting that there's no international authority, there's always still one authority and it's the one that have the major influence or political assets for that specific moment.
Big bank take a little bank.
Bagian 2: Kebijakan Luar Negeri Amerika di Era Unipolar
(5:16 - 8:10) Penggunaan Kekuatan Amerika: Diskusi beralih ke bagaimana Amerika Serikat telah menggunakan kekuatannya dalam beberapa dekade terakhir, dengan Profesor Walt berpendapat bahwa AS tidak selalu menggunakan kekuatannya dengan bijak, terutama setelah Perang Dingin.
(8:11 - 11:55) Hegemoni Liberal dan Kebangkitan Trump: Profesor Walt membahas konsep "hegemoni liberal" dan bagaimana hal itu dianut oleh pemerintahan Clinton, Bush, dan Obama, yang mengarah pada kegagalan kebijakan luar negeri dan kebangkitan Donald Trump.
Bagian 6: Iran dan Dinamika Kekuatan Regional
(46:01 - 49:20) Keheningan Strategis Iran: Diskusi beralih ke Iran dan tanggapannya yang terukur terhadap serangan Israel, dengan menyoroti pendekatan pragmatis Teheran.
(49:21 - 52:30) Motivasi dan Minat Iran: Profesor Walt menganalisis motivasi Iran dalam konteks regional yang lebih luas, dengan menekankan keinginan untuk diakui dan diikutsertakan.
Pak Gita, coba kita bertanya kepada Ustad Adi Hidayat saja.
apa solusi yang terbaik untuk Palestina menurut pikiran seorang ustad…
Bagian 7: Asia, Strategi Penyeimbangan Lepas Pantai, dan Kesimpulan
(52:31 - 56:30) Ambisi Cina dan Dinamika Asia: Percakapan beralih ke Asia, di mana Profesor Walt membahas ambisi Cina untuk dominasi regional dan tanggapan dari negara-negara tetangga.
(56:31 - 59:30) Menyeimbangkan Lepas Pantai dan Peran Amerika: Profesor Walt menganjurkan strategi "penyeimbangan lepas pantai" untuk Amerika Serikat di Asia, dengan menekankan pentingnya kemitraan dan pencegahan.
(59:31 - 60:00) Kesimpulan: Wawancara diakhiri dengan Profesor Walt mengulangi argumen utamanya dan menekankan perlunya pendekatan yang realistis dan pragmatis terhadap urusan internasional.
Bagian 4: Rusia, Cina, dan Tatanan Multipolar yang Berkembang
(20:31 - 24:00) Tantangan Multipolaritas: Diskusi beralih ke tantangan yang ditimbulkan oleh tatanan multipolar yang berkembang, dengan fokus pada keselarasan Rusia-Cina dan implikasinya bagi Amerika Serikat.
(24:01 - 28:00) Perluasan NATO dan Kebangkitan Rusia: Profesor Walt membahas perluasan NATO dan bagaimana hal itu berkontribusi pada memburuknya hubungan dengan Rusia, yang mengarah pada krisis Ukraina.
emang podcast nya pa gita , hanya khusus untuk orang yg bisa Bhs inggris
Il limite del realismo è di equiparare i comportamenti, in questo modo li semplifica e fa sembrare siano gli stessi. Così non è. Non si possono sovrapporre realtà diverse, culture diverse, epoche diverse, quindi supporre quale sia la volontà dei cinesi equivale a dire che sia la stessa degli americani, come se la volontà fosse unica, la stessa per tutti nel tempo e nello spazio.
The promise of satan is but cheating, with consequences in the form of people’s suffering, suffering of humanity, and with the punishment Of God in this world and especially in the next world which is eternal!
I think Steph got it 180 degree wrong on what it would take to solve the Palestine question. Actually the only way a problem like this gets solved, is to address the asymmetry of power that exists between Israel and Palestine by the imposition of an external more powerful entity that guarantees the weak power. What we have had since the 1940s is that Israel always had absolute power while Palestine only had occasional goodwill of people. The day the US says No more to Israel is the day it will face the reality of its situation and have no choice but to make peace.
I totally agree. Doesn’t every body know that?
7:31 Liberal hegemony
28:38 us' domestic politics on the Israelites lobby
Superb conversation. Thank you. Best wishes.
Bagian 3: Kegagalan Kebijakan Luar Negeri dan Peran "The Blob"
(11:56 - 14:58) Kegagalan Kebijakan yang Berkelanjutan: Diskusi tentang apakah ada kelanjutan dari kegagalan kebijakan luar negeri di bawah pemerintahan Biden, dan potensi dampaknya terhadap pemilihan presiden 2024.
(14:59 - 17:40) Kesenjangan antara Opini Publik dan Kebijakan: Profesor Walt membahas perbedaan yang terus-menerus antara opini publik Amerika tentang kebijakan luar negeri dan tindakan yang diambil oleh para presiden.
(17:41 - 20:30) The Blob dan Munculnya Suara-suara Baru: Percakapan menyentuh "The Blob," istilah yang digunakan untuk menggambarkan истеблишмен kebijakan luar negeri Amerika, dan munculnya suara-suara baru yang menantang konsensus yang ada.
The world is not well, war is anywhere.
Pa Gita wiryawan klw podcast dengan orang asing tolong dong di translate , klw dengan bhs inggris , banyak orang ngga bisa bhs inggris tp podcast nya di tayangkan di indonesia ? gimana nih
Ada di captions setting ka
thx
Asia is not professor Waltz’s expertise.
Please, tell us the one
Hadn't heard Walt speak before. Apart from Mearsheimer most US foreign policiy, IR academics and practitioners sound naive and out of touch at best or self-absorbed, dishonest and unwitting.
Watching over a month out from the date of this interview, the idea that Trump is pretty much set to be president is dubious. I'd lean toward no.
Bagian 5: Konflik Israel-Palestina dan Jalan Menuju Normalisasi
(28:01 - 31:40) Kegagalan Proses Oslo: Percakapan beralih ke konflik Israel-Palestina, dengan Profesor Walt mengkritik peran Amerika Serikat dalam kegagalan proses Oslo.
(31:41 - 35:50) Solusi Dua Negara dan Realitas Politik: Profesor Walt mengekspresikan pesimismenya tentang kelangsungan hidup solusi dua negara dan membahas tantangan yang melekat dalam mencapai penyelesaian yang langgeng.
(35:51 - 39:45) Peran Lobi Israel: Diskusi tentang pengaruh lobi Israel terhadap kebijakan AS terhadap Timur Tengah dan potensi perubahan dalam dinamika ini.
(39:46 - 43:40) Menuju Negara Satu atau Apartheid: Profesor Walt mengeksplorasi kemungkinan hasil konflik, termasuk negara apartheid, negara bi-nasional, dan implikasinya.
(43:41 - 46:00) Abraham Accords dan Normalisasi: Percakapan membahas Abraham Accords dan prospek normalisasi yang lebih luas antara Israel dan negara-negara Arab, dengan menyoroti pertimbangan Saudi.
Walt's speculation of what China wants to do in Asia is still purely US centered, there is no understanding at all the increasingly intense military encirclement and targeting of the US have caused China to be concerned with its security. The US military flies 4+ surveillance sorties near China on average everyday, warship/aircraft carriers/submarines all within very close distance to China coast, doing whatever they like--they also get Australia, Canada and recently Netherland airplanes/ships to do the same.
US provokes conflicts via proxies like the PH and Taiwan, constantly playing the separatist card with Tibet and Xinjiang.
It orchestrated and funded the 2019 HK riot--casting HK in the black terror of violence, then sanction HK and trying to wreck HK.
Unilateral sanctioning and wanton embargo/tariffs against China only b/c it wants to slow down China (b/c it's no longer competitive)--really a despicable shameless bully, I don't think Asians in general are that bad.
"Playing hardball with Australia"? it's completely ridiculous--Scott Morrison was banning Huawei and attacking China even ahead of the US, China being its largest customer, representing more than 40% of its exports, Walt expects CN to roll over and whimper?
Even a relatively moderate voice can't see what it is--they never see what they did and the reaction it causes, it's always others' fault, the US is indeed a malignant tumor.
China never invaded any of its neighbors (two border disputes with Vietnam and India were 45 years ago and PLA retreated right away) for 2000 years, 12 out of 14 border disputes were settled amicably through generous offer on the part of CN by 2012, the 13th with Bhutan was settled last year. The only one left is India, who rejected China's generous offer to settle 4 times b/c they won't give any (they only want to take).
I have no idea why Americans can never see historical track record, maybe b/c they have no history.
China wants to be left alone, develop and build, make things and innovate, happily doing business with everyone, it never even wanted to challenge the US--it's the US' hostility that has forced China to adopt a defensive stance.
It seems that the long-suppressed desire for war, when an opportunity arises, might lead to conflicts in various locations. Hopefully, China will play a significant role and take responsibility in Asia. Consider what happened in Europe since Russia’s actions
Lebih baik melanjutkan dan mengajak negara lain untuk menuntut Deklarasi Kemerdekaan Israel dan Undang Undang
Bangsa-Negara mereka daripada two state solutions.
Bersyukur kepada pahlawan nasional, Proklamasi dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Indonesia ngga aneh2.
Timur tengah >< palestina(hamas)><
plus( houthi)isu teroris vs war israel>War< Ukraina>help< plus (NATO)usa,eropa,sekutu.
Next bring Grant Smith for israel lobby topic
need more tea cup
Kasihan orang USA pemerintahnya lebih peduli dana untuk perang dibanding infrastruktur...
In my humble opinion I should be interviewed…
Realism should be a part of the discussions. It could have done good in places like Irak. Still, some aspects of this "realism" are disgusting. One of its huge faults is that it fails to give agency to any but superpowers. If the Baltic countries want to be a part of the west, that is up to them. The only reason top deny them is if Russia was so threatening that it could harm the rest of the west if we adopted the Baltics. The current Russia can't do that, and has no prospect of being able to do this in the future. All we have to do with Russia is to convince Putin he is a dead man if he uses nuclear weapons. That is the single thing we need from Russia.
I'm surprised a realist would recognize the rights of the Palestinians. That is very far from the realpolitik that realism is associated with. It seems Walt mostly just has a big heart for US enemies. :)
But that's the core of realism, that weaker nations have no real agency precisely because they have no power to define their own fate. Realism also states that there are ways they could survive, which is to join the major powers or try to be neutral. That Baltic states deciding to join the west under US' protection is a manifestation of the former. Some realists argue that those states should take the latter path, but it's a different topic entirely.
@@hitthedeck4115 This might be true but it is also evil. :)
@@carlcramer9269 Well, one may very well assign a theory as evil but it's not an ideology like the "Aryan supremacy" of old, for example. The merit of a social theory (not unlike a physical theory such as Newton's theory of gravity in a different context) is how it could predict future events. In this case, realism was successful in predicting China's rise against the US (despite what the liberals hoped for).
Realism in a narrow sense does concern itself mainly with great power politics as you alluded, and doesn't really think what the weaker powers do. It's the limitation of the theory which realists do accept.
@@hitthedeck4115 Yeah, I should have put "evil" in air quotes. Its not that realism is evil, it is just that it is very self-centered and fitted to the needs of a "weak" or unengaged superpower that has to bargain with itself on which of its interests to commit to. I don't see much need for this kind of half-measures against Russia. Its a different matter vs. China, but by the same token China is a more serious threat to the global order. Choices, choices.
❤❤❤❤❤
Hubris.. Realist.. Washington is not involved in everything.. Am I dreaming?😂😂
Beda kelas ini mah podcastnya
Tapi kontrol Arab kali ya
korbannya Palestina yang pastinya, negara arab lain nunggu antrian.
Karena negara Arab minyak nya banyak Jd keruk dulu yg dr luar stock dr dalam di keeping ntar klau udah habis doi kontrol semua nya.
Sekarang gada subtitle yg proper ya pak?
iya nih, auto sekarang subtitlenya, kadang ada terminologi yang awam gk tau tulisanya gimana
Dari yg kutangkep Artinya kita disuruh belajar lagi, mau sampai kpn lagi kita disuapin subtitle
udh ada di captions subtitle indonesia
The Ukrainian mobilization by the EU "high moral standards" looks like close borders and hunting for fresh meat everywhere and every day in Ukraine. There are thousands of videos of fighting in the streets, and there are no men at all in some villages. Cemeteries are huge
Emasssss
Pak Gita, tolong andai2kan bagaimana bisa ketika Nabi Isa AS turun dari langit, pajak dunia bisa terhapuskan…
coba dijelaskan Pak Gita menurut pikiran anda, terimakasih.
Harvard branch of Hamas
Another neocon on the channel, invite Russian scholar to hear the other side of the story Pak
Could you tell the one?
your discusion not good man
With the United States, what is the need for the United Nations? Will everyone listen to you? Unfortunately, you are only for your own interests. How many people are willing to listen to you?