every word he speaks is to the point.... easy to follow his thinking and his logic...I am very happy to see and hear him talking all over the world and captured on You Tube.
It’s no use… *ROMANIA IS A TERRORIST STATE.* In a nation full of warmongering, green-haired, bug-eating, Nazi sympathizers… Andriy Biletsky would pack the house.
This is not 1950 relevant speech. I think you are living in realm of 50s to have such view. It is utterly casual to notice blank seats which reflect a half mature attitude of audience. Also, I could see the lady in the panel showing her teeth and giggle all the time. And cross talk from other panelist when great scholar John is speaking. Show very poorly of the audience and casual behavior on such serious talk of such stature. Poor show on part of host organization. I must say. It demeans the weightage of a high profile lecture or talk.
I just don’t see what was so bad about the dark ages after the fall of Rome, I’ve heard it said like a million times since grade school. Seems there were stable kingdoms, stable religion, and stable family, fighting others over religious/territorial beliefs is as human as it gets but just seems pretty dumb that the West has brutally slaughtered hundreds of millions needlessly that have done nothing positive at all and still is pushing us towards the graveyard of civilizations
Prof. Mearsheimer seems to be "trending" now for some reason. ;-) Another reason (other than the obvious) for me in New Zealand, is his comment at the 1:48:50 mark about "illiberal democracies". We now have a minority that is greatly disadvantaged by govt. mandates. I find his way of defining liberalism and democracy especially apropos. It seems that our "illiberal democracy" is more of an ochlocracy at the moment, verging on tyranny.
@@patrickmcginley8892 I don't know what you meant by your reply which is self contradictory. I find it hard to "settle down" when this is going on. th-cam.com/video/W9IRUDLjj6s/w-d-xo.html
I didn't know that ochlocracy meant government by the mob. Politicians using social media, censorship, propaganda and opinion polls, like a social experiment to deny basic human rights in "a liberal democracy." Even Civil Liberties Associations are attacked and afraid to act.
@@philliprose1815 I'm sorry you didn't understand I meant there is no comparison to tyranny and that you should settle down with your rhetoric champ New Zealand is not Israel comparing the two in terms of being illiberal democracy's is wild!
30:11 The phrase "card-carrying liberal" is a colloquial expression used to describe someone who is staunchly identified as being a committed, unapologetic, or strongly devoted liberal. The term "card-carrying" implies that the person openly embraces liberal beliefs, ideals, and values, often to the point of being proud and vocal about their stance. The phrase originated from membership cards issued by organizations, so in this context, it's used figuratively to emphasize someone's strong and unwavering dedication to liberal principles.
@@dmitrisalopaev3051 o pi ojj jjjojjj j jjo om j j kkb pi ojj o om o pi o om om oojo pi ojj oooooo om pi ojo om ojo om pi o pi ojj oo pi ooo pi om ojjo pi o pi ooo om o om ooo om o pi om oj kjj j pi oj om pi o om pi om ojo pi o pi ojj jo pi ojj jk jjojjj jo om om ojooooooooo om ojjkjo om om oo jojjoooo pi ojj jjjjokjjo pi o pi ojo om o om ojj pi o pi o om om ojj j jo om pi ook jooo ook oo ook om ojj ook om ook o ook ojj jo ook oooo jojo om om o ook ooo ook ooo ook ojj jj ook o ook oj jo ook o j joo ook oo jojjoooo ook ojo om oj ook ook j ook ook ook ojjjjj ook o ook ojoo om om o jo ook o jjj ook jo ook ojkjo om oo ook ook j om ook ojojk ook ooo ook o ook ojo ook o jjj ook o ook ojjo ook o oj ook ook ojj jo ook ojojjjjo jo k ook ook o ook o ook ojo ook ojo ook om ook k km ojjooo ook om ojjj jjjo ook ooo ook o kj. J. Jjo ook ojo ook ooo o ook o ook ojo ook ojo ook o oj oo jo ook ook ojojo jo jjjo ook om ojooj j. Jj om ojjj jo ook o ook oj jooo ook ooo om o ook om ook ook ook ooo ook om ojo ook oj ook o ook ojooo ook om oj ook ojoo ook ook oojjj ook ooo ook o ook jo ook ook oj. Jjo ook o ook ojojj ook ojo ook ook. Jjooo ook ojjo ook om ojjj jj ook ook ooj ook ook o ook o ook j ooooojjj oo jjo ook oj om oo ook ooo ook oj ook oo ook ooo jjjoooo ook ooo o👍🤣👍🤐👍🤣🌕🌙👍🌙🤣🌙🌙👍🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🌙🌙🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
See time @33:17 if you are interested in Professor John Mearsheimer's take on the current crisis w/ Russia over Ukraine. Basically, America is agitating Russia in the name of "liberal hegemony" per EU & NATO, and we're wrongly accusing Putin of being the aggressor when in fact we are the ideological, nearsighted baddies.
The Ukrainians don't want to be part of Russia, how is that America's doing? Nato is a defensive treaty, which is why the members of Nato aren't all piling in on top of Russia right now, and why Ukrainian women and children are being bombed by unopposed Russian planes. Putin started the war. That is a fact, not conjecture. He didn't try to solve his problem by negotiation, he went straight in with military force. Another fact.
His black box assumption as regards China does NOT obtain...During the time of Zheng He, if China had a Hobbsian mentality, she would have conquered the world, but she didn't. Hegemons can coexist....witness China/India, as 1 and 2 in terms of gdp and military power, for thousands of years without eviscerating themselves every few decades like the Europeans...until the white man cometh.
@@zhoubaidinh403 neither. China or India is pushing their governance an capitalism onto other nations as does the US with its one true American Style “Democracy” and Predatory “Capitalism” there is no hegemony coming from China or India… look up the meaning of the word.
Sure this man has written some good things, but that doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. As he demonstrated in this video, his unreasonable hatred for Trump which he bases on econimics, something he has admitted to not understanding... So no, criticizing him when he makes idiotic statements is the correct thing to do. You don't get a free pass to say dumb things no matter who you are.
@@ExodusCore "unreasonable" "hatred" "idiotic" pretty charged terms you're using. Clearly you're having an emotional response to what this man has said (which has honestly been pretty mild. How can you claim he has hatred for that man?) He also didn't only criticize Trump for economic reasons.
I would love to hear his view as to whether commerce can be the force that can overturn traditional geopolitics, thinking more the power of the WEF and the multi national businesses such as Facebook, Bill Gates etc and particularly the inclusion of Chinese companies (strangely exclusion of Russian Companies) as to whether the strength of this organisation will in time have more influence over the power distribution of the world than liberal hegenomy has had.
Over intellectualize's these concepts, Truth trumps these concerns: the Russian affecting the 2016 US election was a lie propagated by one of the candidates to discredit their opponent!
Not on economics though... nor did he even seem to understand why Trump called out Nato or placed tarrifs on USA's "allies". Idiot even believed that the TPP would be good for open free trade. The guy doesn't understand economics at all.
❤ Madeleine Albright was a prominent figure in American politics. She served as the first female Secretary of State in the United States under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Albright played a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy during her tenure. She was known for her diplomatic efforts, particularly in dealing with complex international issues, including the NATO intervention in Kosovo and advocating for the expansion of NATO. Albright was highly regarded for her intellect, diplomacy, and her efforts to promote democracy and human rights on the global stage. Additionally, she was known for her role as an advocate for women's rights and issues both in the United States and worldwide.
Yeah I agree is frustrating. TH-cam needs to fix this. I also had a channel some time ago and i had no control on the ads and when they run. Probably because this is a very long video yt is adding more ads than on short ones...
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA. Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945. It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, *our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires,* and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put 'Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25) Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne (historian), but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. If it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring: - attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London) - attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London) - Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC) - The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech) - Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC) From wiki, and regarding the theory: *"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."* Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay) Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
"If you live next to a great power (Ukraine), you have no right to decide your own foreign policy or the great power will crush you." They all smirked. Well, they're not laughing now I guess. For EU schills, sovereignty and nationalism is the great threat but suddenly Ukraine's sovereignty and nationalism is paramount for it's democracy they now claim. How strange! They certainly didn't want the UK to have theirs. The whole thing reminded me of an American at Spectre HQ. The EU flags everywhere set the tone of course.
@@jacobjorgenson9285 Fishing our own waters. Voting for the people who rule over us (did you vote for Ursula? I f##king didn't get a choice). Choosing who can come over and settle here (still not happening of course, since the tories are terrible - just like all the rest). Regardless of any perceived freedoms ... choosing to simply not being in the EU. That's a choice. Not that we really left it in any meaningful way. Nothing much changed because the ruling class didn't want it to.
Yes I know, the fishing industry was screwed by the eu. My ex gf father was fisherman until it got destroyed. Ended up in the oil industry at sea. Regardless of money, i have no interest in being part of of a corrupt eu... we have enough corruption in our own government. Anyway, enjoy the whole owning nothing and being happy stuff. I sure won't.
First: Mearsheimer's lecture was excellent, very well organized and thought out however being of same age as author I have noticed, observed and seen what has happened in last 50 years first hand and have been dismayed at U.S. actions over and over and Mr. Mearsheimer's lecture sums up my experience living through this era. Now let me address the 'panel' sitting there, it seems to me the panel is focused on primarily is U.S.A. taxpayer, i.e., they have all enjoyed the increase in their living standards primarily because of the generosity of U.S. taxpayer AND and don't want to lose such support as observed by anxiety in their comments. Running the rest of the world off US taxpayer on supposition US taxpayer is so well off he can afford to change entire world security and economic status is not only wrong but dangerous! The USA has promoted all states around world to become addicted to USA taxpayer support while not requiring these states to look how their countries can become 'independently sustainable. The idea USA citizens enjoy highest standard of living in world is a fallacy; some yes, but far from all and is not limited to economic status in many cases (too complicated to discuss currently). I think Mr. Mearsheimer should focus more on how USA's 'liberal hegemony' has caused almost every nation on planet becoming economically and security dependent on USA. taxpayer - which is a big problem! For some reason I do not understand how Mr. Mearsheimer dismisses world population as not being a factor in how the 'mechanics' of world society operates, I suspect he thinks world has 'infinite' resources and no impact on ecosystem, very dangerous philosophical view about life! No discussion of this nature can avoid discussing population/climate/ecosystem because world observations must be far broader than 'borders & security' issues. Last comment: The panel makes this lecture tortuously boring with their ill thought out overly long comments that turn this lecture into multiple lectures - too much, overbearing long winded poorly thought out comments destroy the positive aspects of the lecture!
The analysis mentioned below about the present global dysfunctions does not go against what is mentioned by many Religions and Philosophies: we need to discredit the "I am right, the other is wrong" syndrome. Ways of thinking and feeling can act as positive buffer zones avoiding conflicts: for example most people agree that in life balancing acts are important and that to set concepts in concrete can turn a good point into a bad score! It must not be argued that the progress in technology is not matched by a progress in Humanism when more and more Scientists study and share the facts that Science has the potential to lead to and connect with Universal or Spiritual Values. So public support can help get there and for better being, self development and Human Resources Management should be promoted in a free environment.
Domnule nu stiam ca o sa apara un om asa de marcat de asa multa dusmanie pe mine o romanca care si-a castigat tot ce are prin munca,bunatate ptr.oameni di copii.ABa am facut si voluntariat si am imbratisat toate rasele de copii,care aveau nevoi dar erau buni,minunati.Iata cine mi-a aparut azi in carti,unul careincearca sa-mi tina prefica ca sunt prietena cu XI JINPING ,cu PRESEDINTELE PUTIN cu arabi,cu islamisti,cu palestanieni, cu isralenieni,,cu arabi,cu musulmani,etc.Ii respect pe toti si toti ma respecta.Va multumesc dragi prieteni tuturor!
The taproot of liberal hegemony refers to the foundational principle or core belief that underlies the dominance or influence of liberal democratic values in global politics. It encompasses the idea that spreading liberal democratic principles, such as human rights, free markets, and democratic governance, is the best approach for ensuring stability, security, and progress in the world. This concept drives international relations and foreign policy decisions in favor of promoting these values globally.
Libereal hegemony may come again if America will produce, represent 50% of world economy. I believe that hapeend after 1947. Many states accept that kind of hemogony when they are in the receiving end, but not in the front line of a battle.
American did flourish after WWII but not from Liberal Hegemony. The definition of hegemony is the dominance of one group over another. A limited government with free market capitalism is what grew the US. Afraid terms of words have been intentionally changed to fit the propaganda produced by those behind Liberal Hegemony. Take capitalism. It's a economic formula to grow a economy based on individual trade. It's not an social ideology for control that's being taught.
@@MelissaR784 Capitalism is absolutely an ideology and a social ideology, as well as a "formula". "A limited government with free market capitalism is what grew the United States." Let's not forget that Europe and Asia had just had their industrial base and capability blown up, the United States was blessed with what was, at the time, basically unlimited cheap and free energy, and this all happened right in a sweet spot of technological advancement. You might be blinded by an ideology if you aren't seeing those factors. ( And "free market capitalism" is either a redundant phrase or an oxymoron. I'd suggest the latter).
Watching Mearsheimer a lot over the past few months and the Ukraine invasion has been gratifying, but there's one major point of contention which remains. America isn't trying to spread Liberal Hegemony. America is trying to spread AMERICAN Hegemony UNDER THE GUISE of Liberal Hegemony. This is what creates countries like Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Ukraine. As a realist, surely he understands this. I believe Mearsheimer is someone who's simply become tired of idiotic decisions made by a US which doesn't recognize the limits of its power and who is, perhaps, disgusted by our crimes abroad. It's resulted in a country which has squandered its primacy in a mere 30 years, despite a historically unprecedented military advance encircling the globe.
About politically correct ideas: The "groups" who share "some kind of power", looks to me, are interested to preserve their advantages, benifts, ... and create a "diapazon of ideas" that they do not like to be challanged, but accepted as as "politicaly correct ideas". This diapozon of ideas is not a part of any document. It is implied. I have seen it in public schools. President Trump was against "politicaly correct ideas" but right now, some of his suporters are against vacination for wich HE worked very hard as "something very important, higly correct solution of the problem of fightin pandemic of corona virus. Looks to me some supporters consider vaccination as "A not correct solution" My conclusion is: To fight agains a status quo, some people attac "Politically correct idea" that represenr interest of that group. When they take or lose power they start to create a new diapazon of "Politically correct ideas" that fits with their personal interest. In this case most of them are apparatchiks. They believe that they are fighting for their egzistence. It is easy to forget "moral values" in the battle to survive. They believe, that latte, they can do a damaging control, repear.
The gentleman asked about illiberal liberalism, not illiberal democracy. I wish someone clarified with him so John could have given the correct answer.
Here's my two cents worth having listened to several of Mearsheimer's speeches throughout the world. The only way to understand Mearsheimer (Mearsh)' is to accept vast, sweeping generalizations, (as was already mentioned in previous criticisms by some of his academic contemporaries) although to his credit he NEVER claimed his theory explains everything. In other presentations he describes this term "populism" differently depending on the jurisdiction in which he's presenting. As it relates to his Hungarian example, given Hungary is a neighbour of Romania, he says the prime minister of Hungary, Orban, is happy to trample fundamental "inalienable human rights", rejecting politically correct dogma. Unfortunately Mearsh does not express what Hungary is actually contesting in the context of rejecting certain "inalienable rights". News flash: They relate to rejecting same sex marriage, and reaffirms their right to privilege canonical Christian pillars, such as traditional marriage between man and woman, limits on abortion, strictly two sexes, throwing out seditious, and corrupting concepts related to teaching anal sex to elementary school children, and trans bathroom issues, to name a few. Mearsh is either unaware or doesn't have the time to explain that Orban is not interested in the liberal left, Marxist political correctness path, a reaction against which America saw its greatest peaceful political revolution in the election of Donald Trump. In the same vein of "populism" (which he is currently at a loss to explain - see my final evaluation related to Mearsh's work below). Which is why Orban is comfortable saying that Hungarians are alright with "illiberal liberalism". Yet Mearsh does not make this distinction and instead refers to "inalienable rights" being violated in Hungary. A reckless claim. He evidently doesn't understand this supremely important nuance, and is devoid of explaining the deep influence of cultural Marxism on "liberalism". To give him benefit of the doubt, perhaps time constraints didn't allow him to go into detail, but nonetheless you'd think that a presentation taking over 2 hours would allow him to qualify his remarks, but he didn't. So sad, he couldn't/wouldn't give the respect due to the developments among the V4 nations, a bulwark against the excesses of an unelected unaccountable Brussels. There would so much more to say about this subject (such as Brussel's insistence on population exchange through mass migration, with the help of unelected NGO's, and the concomitant obvious excesses left unchecked until certain countries that have not taken part in colonizing activities in their history, are saying they're opting out of a Western driven neo-communist drive to enslave Europeans under the guise of democracy). Hence I don't believe he is as informed (assuming this talk published near the time of the talk in Nov. 2018?) as one would expect relative recent developments within the EU context. Mearsh may not realize it, but his bias on world affairs is tainted with the very bias he claims other nations have legitimately have had, confronting U.S. hegemony. Lastly the thought that the U.S. needed the Soviets to defeat Japan, IMO this is totally outrageous. The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Sorry Mearsh. So much to say, so little space. That is not to say that Mearsh doesn't have legitimacy relative his academic contribution, and I agree with a lot of his points, (but I vehemently disagree that there was nothing the Americans could do about leaving Eastern Europe at the hands of the Soviets, in 1945, they dropped two atomic bombs on Japan). Furthermore, they left Hungary high and dry, when it came to the revolution of 1956, it appears they may be leaving the Kurds high and dry, given recent developments about pulling out of Syria, (granted this was not known during the time of Mearsh's talk here). He's right in that American hubris kept the U.S. naive, while the KGB were laughing at them, compared to their upstart (continuation of OSS) CIA. Basically the power of unfettered capitalism and cost accounting won the day. Also I disagree with Mearsh's notion that the U.S. pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese. Except it is not so much the U.S. as it is the DNC that pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, with their insistence on "Russian Collusion" in Trump's election. The DNC's rabid, Machiavellian insistence on falsely accusing the Trump administration with Russian collusion, has alienated Russia. Lastly, what I hold most fascinating is that Mearsh does not spend even an iota of time contemplating the probabilities that in fact any U.S. administration would have been motivated by looting foreign nations, (consider neo-con Halliburton in Iraq) that is deep corruption within the U.S. state department, enabled and promoted by silent powerful partners that stood to gain from privileged status, the very like that is only now coming to light in context of Ukraine, (George Soros deploying his wealth to foment the Orange revolution) and let's not forget Uranium 1 deal involving Hillary Clinton. In other words KLEPTOCRACY. Hence Mearsh' simplistic generalizations, and covering for the corruption of the elite U.S. political class. Of course let's not forget that the (Chinese) CCP is likely as big a Kleptocracy if NOT LARGER THAN THE U.S.. Lastly what crimes against minorities is the Romanian woman at the end (right of the panel) referring to in the U.S.? Based on the final questions posed by this panel, it is evident that they, are globalists, as they express their fear of populism. Ironically, apparently these panelists aren't aware that Mearsh's entire point is that the threat of political liberalism, which this panel is enamoured with, is militarism, which endangers the world. Paradoxical. Evidently surprising to this panel.
@@BoomerZman77 I am honoured by your comment. I was frustrated, by the apparent lack of understanding of Central and Eastern Europe, by so called "pundits" that evidently have not taken the time to study what is actually going on in these regions, and prefer to cash in, on generalizations. Is this a situation authors are milking their legacy (reputation)? Perhaps. To answer your question: My channel is th-cam.com/channels/4RSzwDQ4-tozncQWWT2R8w.html?view_as=subscriber, I am not a political analyst although sometimes I feel like one. Regards.
@@SteveGarai same for his lack of understanding of China. He projects American exceptionalism thinking and behaviour onto them, when in reality most Asian countries were not colonised or bullied by the Chinese despite their historical hegemony in the region. That disconnect between East and West persists to this day. I can also tell you that for now, most Chinese are supportive of the CCP because of China's growth and prosperity. His point of stoking nationality stands, but most youth in China are more sophisticated and educated. Kleptocracy in China was worse before Xi Jinping's time and his clampdown over the years is one of the reasons why a lot of Chinese fled or buy homes overseas. It's not perfect, but at least there are actions done to mitigate it. The US, on the other hand, is a clear plutocracy that's legally protected.
Reading between the lines of your rant.....You seem to equate Fascism (I.e. populism) with Christian values, good manners, old fashioned common sense, and a healthy fear and loathing of filthy foreigners......Now......Where have we heard this before?
I love John's views and fully agree. However at 32:30 about the Bush doctrine, he's not mentioning the 9/11-event which any nation would take as a declaration of war (or simply use it as excuse), hence the Middle-east to pieces now. It might turn off part of the audience..
Yes, and he doesn't count Afghanistan as a mistake, like Iraq 2003. I wish someone had asked him about that. Also, with the cohort that seems to be on this discussion, I don't see any mention of 9/11 non-MSM thinking, so I won't bother with that.
9/11 was done mostly by a group of individuals from Saudi Arabia with Ben Laden (made by the American Gov to sabotage the former USSR) at the center front. The Afghans allowed Ben laden in their territories which made the American’ assault justify, but Iraq nope...They were looking for weapon of mass delusion. So, will you say Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Libya were part of declaration of war? Super power have the tendency to invade other places just to conquer and to exploit.
It's a great discussion, but regarding the topic about the nature of "illiberal democracy", I think that Mearsheimer takes the term "illiberal" too literally. My personal understanding of "illiberal" in such a context is that "liberalism" is thought to mean roughly something like "moralistic grandstanding and imperialism using liberal rights as pretext", and the word "illiberal" is used to express a rejection of such.
America's claim of spreading democracy shouldn't be taken at face value. The US ignored the democratic vote in Afghanistan and basically installed Karzei and his brother as dictators. The US also overrode the desires for independence by the Kurdish regions of Iraq. America is only interested in spreading capitalism around the world, free market neo liberal capital not liberal democracy. If the two coincide then great, if they don't, the former always takes precedence over the latter.
He's right on in most areas, other areas not so, somehow leaves out the power of individuals with huge wealth pools in the western economic structure who kill for great wealth. and under the guise of the great liberal democracy lie.
I'm 27 minutes into this, and begin to wonder if John discussed social contract hierarchies above and beyond the Nation State. Is class structure ever discussed? The rich and powerful are their own rogue Nation State with no regard for the concept of inalienable rights for everyone.
1:05:42 how can this dude say that the liberal hegemony label didn’t align with policy, Mearsheimer had referencing Madeline Albright and the bush doctrine throughout his entire explanation of the theory. He just said that there was no evidence when he was just told it just now in the first half of this event. He must think people in the room are stupid
Shame we had to listen to the plodder who spoke after JM. Like most career politicians, Former Ambassador Celac has mastered the art of talking a lot and saying very little. Save yourself. Skip from 46.04 - 1.00.00
The problem is not that US spreads liberalism, but it gathers resources. Oil in Irak had more weight than lack of human rights in there. Napoleon armies spread ideas of french revolution in Europe but in the same they plundered it
He may be wrong in thinking people in charge of the policy making in the US will finally listen to him. Wrong. They did not, are not, and will not. I think this is a tragedy.
This is exactly what you don't know about China. I found that almost all foreign researchers believe that the CCP does not have the so-called correctness of governance. This is really ridiculous. I can tell you responsibly that the vast majority of Chinese believe that the CCP has a "mandate of heaven" in the sense of traditional Chinese culture.
Human Rights has been one of the most successful policies forwarded by western democracies ever. The idea that the life of a person in the developing world is of equal value to the life of an American is what compels us to act when we should. The trick is knowing our limits. You can see this playing out with great drama in the vaccine distribution debate. How many healthy, young Americans should be vaccinated ahead of elderly, weak non-Americans?
The most successful Human Rights policy was and is the policy that ended slavery World Wide, *See: Abolition of Slaver Act BritishHouseCommons 1833,* from that point in Human History to this day roughly 200yrs, the population of earth went from 1billion to 8billion with the largest average increase in personal wealth ever recorded in Human History. Humanity owes England (1833) and the USA (1865 American Civil War) for their very existence. As for vaccinations, Old Young, who should go 1st....matters little, we all must be vaccinated, it should have been completed 12 months ago, but yet, here we are still living with Covid because some people (20%?) REFUSE to be vaccinated. I think that it is very shortsighted and irresponsible behavior on their part. P.S. I waited for as long as I could, I got my second Covid Shot on Oct 16th, I think that the vaccin is largely a placebo so it *"probably"* doesn't matter.
@@tommyodonovan3883 Oh no you are wrong, Haiti was the first country who led a successful slave revolt in 1804 to end slavery at their doorsteps. Then, they helped Simon Bolivar el Libertador to liberate many countries in South America. The Greeks asked them to help in the revolution against the Ottoman’s empires in 1821 ( they provided coffee to the Greeks to sell to buy guns and some individuals). After the slaves revolt in Haiti in 1804, the British understood it will be a problem for their Caribbean’ colonies. They fear they might a revolution the decided to enact the Abolition of Slaver Act. On the American side, John Brown led a revolution to attack a government building in Virginia to get weapons. So, it was on unsuccessful. Nat Turner revolted against the slavery system and so many attempted to do a revolution which were unsuccessful. Finally, they had to go over a civil war after many mini revolutions. Just one advice check a history book before you mislead the audience.
"Nationalism" is not the correct term. "Communitarianism" is better. And communitarianism includes family, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, etc. It is obviously a huge part of human nature, but especially in the modern world, where increasing economic globalization means we interact with people from diverse cultures, it has become problematic. But do we want to be morons, who never leave the confines of our home towns, and see every stranger as a threat. Or do we want to pursue a cosmopolitan world view, and understand that other communities are different, but we share a common humanity. I think communitarianism is most fundamental when your community is threatened, and you come together to defend one another. But the fact that we are all individuals means that our sense of community overlaps. We are simultaneously members of a diverse range of communities. Once we go beyond the community of people we personally know, onto the level of "imagined communities," then communitarianism becomes increasingly fallible and dangerous.
People often see a fondness and regard for ones home as patriotism. other people's homeland can be seen as their nationalism. It's a matter of perspective and a dangerous perspective at that.
before Trump the Europeans were putting it 20% tax on American autos. sugar daddy America was only putting to 2% tax on German cars.Trump said that's going to stop. open free trade with Europe has been one way. Trump put end to that
He also applied tariffs on China and killed a lot of midwest farmers careers as well as land. Again, we paid out subsidies to take that hit. Lets Go Bonespurs!
@@buckseedamerica2743 Yes, and it was temporary. If the virus leak had not happened in China the USA would have had a deal with them and things would have worked out perfectly. Funy how the virus suddenly appeared in that country when the the USA was starting to pressure them.
I think it’s vital first of all for America to be United with the allies in the free world and perhaps seek possibility to cooperate with Russia vying “compete” with China, the biggest threat security concern to the world. But yet there is another concern for a stringer Russia that is try to restore the land of old Soviet Union,?that also would be a potential threat to America too. I think America need to be more United and not just focus on race division, transgender, or being manipulated by certain ideology.
Dear Professor Mearsheimer, Whilst I admire the intellectual thought invested in your definitions of "liberal democracy", "Nationalism" and the reality of your analysis of historical USA stupidity in determining its policies and approach to the rest of the world, I am left surprised and frustrated by your summary of the future for the State of Israel i.e. a choice between 'apartheid' or 'bi-nationalism' leading to the end of Zionism. The aspect missing from the intellectual thinking and its conclusions is the element of geography. You explain how land gets divided up into Nation States by common agreements to separate ethnic groups: the Czech Republic and Slovakia: the Serbs and Croatians etc etc. And you explain that the people in Catalonia want to govern themselves by themselves v.a.v. Spain as do the Vietnamese v.a.v. France/China/USA & as do the Palestinians v.a.v. Israel. But in your "realism" you have no solution for us here in Israel when we are faced with Palestinian Nationalism (i.e. they don't want to be told by Israel as to how to govern themselves) and at the same time we are also faced with a geographical reality. If a two state solution were adopted, then the Palestinian government could emplace artillery guns in the Palestinian town of Tulkarm which is on the high ground of the "West Bank" just 15 kilometers from our town of Netanya which is on the shores of the Mediterranean sea. So when they fire their guns, we can choose to drown in the sea or fight for our lives. Who will write a contract determining the clauses in a "Two State Solution" in which we can find definitions of "trust", of "honourable behaviour" and of "mutual friendship" which can be relied upon in an indeterminable long term future?
Many things prof. Mearsheimer says are right. But he is wrong in many things too. Thus he is drawing wrong conclusions. Two points: 1. we are both individuals and social at the same time...and as such, no individual or society enjoys diktators 2. Russia didn't like Nato expansion east...but that still doesn't mean they had to invade Ukraine and do what they do there...and lie and lie about everything.
On your first point: Whole lot of germans seemed to enjoy dictatorship in 1930's after those who didn't enjoy were put to camps. So do many Chinese people today who enjoy economic growth that has happened during their communist dictatorship. On your second point: If I've understood anything about Mearsheimer's thinking, he doesn't say Russia had to do anything. What he s saying is that great powers do whatever they think they can in order to secure their vital interests. And if Russia see that lying about stuff serves their interests then they will do it. At the moment it looks like Russia calculated wrong what it can do since USA and Europe seem to think it is in their interest to arm Ukraine and stop Russia.
The Romanian who likes USA so much: " Why were we given to the Russian serial killer?" Well, because you were in kahoots with the Nazi Germany, therefore a legitimate spoils of war. Same goes for all the Baltic states. Professor was too nice to say that.
All the Baltic States "in kahoots with the Nazi Germany"? First, when USSR first invaded these states they were sort of "given" to USSR (not to Russia) by Nazi Germany. Later, when Nazi Germany invaded them, they were not independent states but part of the USSR.
Well, let's look at the state of America. Last year's they had over 100,000 fatal drug overdoses and over 40,000 gun murders. If that's your idea of the shining house on the hill , I wish you good luck
He clearly approves of Trump’s view of IR, just not his application. Also, Trump is so universally disliked in Academia, no one would listen to him if he were too closely aligned with Trump. Trump failed to accomplish much, because you need the “deep state” to be on your side. John is trying to convince that deep state, rather than demonize it (as Trump did).
All of a sudden our traitorous government decided to decommission the last soviet era fighter planes but everyone with half a neuron understand where those planes will end. Unfortunately the population in my country is stunned by barbeques,beers and economic hardship Greetings from Romania
1:24:40 I don’t think that’s the list, historically it is the British, the Russians, the French, the Portuguese, the Germans, the Japanese, then the Americans in that order roughly. Basically the US weren’t number one in terms of grudges or even number two, they’re much lower. The basis for all this was territorial and sovereignty. The British forces open trade using opium with two wars that imposed their laws and took territory namely Hong Kong, the Russians took a huge chunk of territory that is northern Manchuria and today its where Vladivostok and Khabarovsk are, the French piggy backed on the British in influencing southern China, both the French and British sacked the Chinese capital, the Portuguese got Macau, the Germans had Shandong, then the Japanese took shandong and northern Manchuria and went to all out war and did Nanking, the Americans had never done that much in history and in fact policed the other European nations to have free and fair trade in China to make it fair (whilst knowing their economy would beat them all), they helped fight the Japanese by sending advisors and specialists to both the communists and nationalists, they beat Japan which basically saved China, and then teamed up with against russia. The biggest spats were the Korean War and Taiwan. But there’s a reason there’s a one China policy and that’s because everyone agreed when China opened up. The grudges with the other powers sort of blew over since Hong Kong was handed over same thing for the Portuguese with Macau, and the Germans already lost Shandong to Japan, Japan was also the economic model China uses today and actually Mao thanked them because if they didn’t fight the nationalists then the communists wouldn’t have won at all, the US lessens the impact of the Europeans and Japan and only now the spats exist with Taiwan and the rise of Chinese technology. Russia still has control over the land they took. If anything, China would be willing to leave Taiwan alone for the time being if they’d get back their land up north. In fact I think if they were to make a choice they’d choose the northern land over Taiwan. China needs natural resources and water to urbanize and keep people fed. Taiwan doesn’t have those important things. If China wanted the Taiwanese companies or economies, they just talk to the CEO’s to get them to come by giving them a good deal. Xi Jinping governed Fujian where he got a lot of Taiwanese businesses to set shop there. Apple does create iPhones in China but only through Foxconn which hires Chinese labor and has the technology and expertise to create such a complex product. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company. I think China already believes time is on their side when it comes with unifying Taiwan. What isn’t for certain is the territory up north that has right now no clear plan of getting back the way Taiwan was treated when the US straight up agreed it was there’s and only now says no. I think they have better faith in turning the US Taiwan stuff around then the stuff Russia took in northern China. There are actual Russians there now and an actual land army that even if it’s corrupt would still have traditions and experience maintained over decades of being a global power. As for France, I think they’ve totally rehabilitated their relationship. I think Macron or just France in general are tired of the way they’re treated even when they were the winners of WW2. Even when they won, they were treated still as losers for being conquered. They also had good companies and economic developments that were stamped out such as Alstom, the Australian submarine deal, and even having a chance to break into the Hollywood industry. I wouldn’t say France would be a natural friend of China, but they have a lot of pride. WW2 them losing was an anomaly in history at least to them, where they know they won a ton of wars and were formidable. Aligning with the west hasn’t brought the same dignity they once expected to return especially after the gutting of their economic prospects that were real successes to the French. So as China was open to bolster these things I think they took the chance to stick it to the US and went with it wholeheartedly. They brought 50 ceos on that Macron trip and had the biggest welcome and deals including Alstom helping with more infrastructure technology, and nuclear energy development for China to transition out of coal. They were so certain of this China outright stopped buying or getting coal to use for power and even had intermittent power restrictions imposed at certain times in the day to not use up all the power they had remaining or increase the demand for coal. Even then, the biggest thing is the technology particularly with Alstom who at one point built semiconductors and microchips. Even if parts of their company were bought out, the infrastructure and talent plus research and education to create the technology doesn’t disappear from France. They’re getting China to help build their airbus airplanes. If semiconductors are so necessary for cars, what would be the case for airplanes, and they’re getting China to make them. The liberal hegemony stuff has really shattered the real advantages they had up to the 2000s, it’s remarkable that people in government still align with it regardless
As much as I appreciate Mr. Mearsheimer’s intellectually stimulating ideas, I find that the whole discussion remains stuck within a sea of “isms” i.e. Liberalism, Realism, Nationalism, Communism, Capitalism...already the first two of which seem so vague and difficult to pin down, for they are based on two words i.e. ‘liberal’ and ‘real’ which have been defined or looked at in so many different ways that their actual significance have become blurred over time. Secondly “ism”-terms , in my opinion, hold within them a dryness and lifelessness, likely also due to their simply having been overused so as they lose their effectiveness..., but beyond that, they are nouns (describing ideologies) hence cold, hardly felt...why doesn’t anyone of these historically and culturally knowledgeable individuals ever mention Jesus ?? This trielt baffles me, because on precisely the socio-cultural level, philosophically speaking - the words spoken by (cited) and attributed to Jesus, all his ideas expressed within the four books of the New Testament can be summarized in the term “being human” which means “being REAL” - no matter what each individual choses to believe, Jesus’ philosophy of ‘loving your next and forgiving your enemy’ the most profound philosophy ever spoken and lived ! as it addresses the most vital aspect of our lives upon planet earth: Human relations. So let’s just all ‘BE HUMAN’ !!!
When Mearsheimer talks about realism, he is talking about practical possibilities. What is likely and most probable vs. what is unreasonably unlikely. This is a documentation of trying to implement ideas that are unrealistic, and the consequences they bring.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
We should all listen more to John Meirsheimer! Makes sense!
every word he speaks is to the point.... easy to follow his thinking and his logic...I am very happy to see and hear him talking all over the world and captured on You Tube.
Great to see so many foreigners talk on Romania Energy Center
A simple joy when history proves you right
ALL and all John Mearsheimer's constructs are very good and evolving..Maybe the very best so far!
Another excellent presentation by one of the best IR scholars of our time.
John is one of the greatest (Top 5) working geopolitical thinkers today.
who else do you recommend?
#1
@@iamhe999 Vladimir Pozner on "USA created Putin"
@@iamhe999 Also watch the latest video of John Mersheimer on Ukraine Invasion
@@iamhe999 The late Dr. Stephen Cohen (RIP)
The Man knows exactly what he is talking about.
“He’s not wrong!” -Enoch
This was excellent. Very good audience, panel, and of course, speaker.
Disgraceful to see that the auditorium is not full. This man is so intelligent and important to listen to!
It’s no use… *ROMANIA IS A TERRORIST STATE.*
In a nation full of warmongering, green-haired, bug-eating, Nazi sympathizers… Andriy Biletsky would pack the house.
People are sick n tired of usa's imperialism, and this speech based on 1950s thinking was no different
This is not 1950 relevant speech. I think you are living in realm of 50s to have such view. It is utterly casual to notice blank seats which reflect a half mature attitude of audience. Also, I could see the lady in the panel showing her teeth and giggle all the time. And cross talk from other panelist when great scholar John is speaking. Show very poorly of the audience and casual behavior on such serious talk of such stature. Poor show on part of host organization. I must say. It demeans the weightage of a high profile lecture or talk.
A great teacher the world has to listen
We are not facing a problem of boredom now for sure :)
But I'm not too excited abt that.
It seems that good career jobs where available and bad choices made
Id rather take boredom but i guess, that world is a fantasy..mm
I just don’t see what was so bad about the dark ages after the fall of Rome, I’ve heard it said like a million times since grade school. Seems there were stable kingdoms, stable religion, and stable family, fighting others over religious/territorial beliefs is as human as it gets but just seems pretty dumb that the West has brutally slaughtered hundreds of millions needlessly that have done nothing positive at all and still is pushing us towards the graveyard of civilizations
Prof. Mearsheimer seems to be "trending" now for some reason. ;-) Another reason (other than the obvious) for me in New Zealand, is his comment at the 1:48:50 mark about "illiberal democracies". We now have a minority that is greatly disadvantaged by govt. mandates. I find his way of defining liberalism and democracy especially apropos. It seems that our "illiberal democracy" is more of an ochlocracy at the moment, verging on tyranny.
Settle down kiwi you really couldn't be much further from tyranny champ
@@patrickmcginley8892 I don't know what you meant by your reply which is self contradictory. I find it hard to "settle down" when this is going on. th-cam.com/video/W9IRUDLjj6s/w-d-xo.html
truly tyrannical mate
I didn't know that ochlocracy meant government by the mob. Politicians using social media, censorship, propaganda and opinion polls, like a social experiment to deny basic human rights in "a liberal democracy." Even Civil Liberties Associations are attacked and afraid to act.
@@philliprose1815 I'm sorry you didn't understand I meant there is no comparison to tyranny and that you should settle down with your rhetoric champ
New Zealand is not Israel comparing the two in terms of being illiberal democracy's is wild!
You know the truth and intellectual honesty when you hear it.
what a wonderful presentation .....kudos
We appreciate your comment. It was a privilege for us to host Professor Mearsheimer on his first visit to Romania.
30:11
The phrase "card-carrying liberal" is a colloquial expression used to describe someone who is staunchly identified as being a committed, unapologetic, or strongly devoted liberal. The term "card-carrying" implies that the person openly embraces liberal beliefs, ideals, and values, often to the point of being proud and vocal about their stance. The phrase originated from membership cards issued by organizations, so in this context, it's used figuratively to emphasize someone's strong and unwavering dedication to liberal principles.
Mearsheimer! What a great speaker.
Hi 👋 🇹🇱🇹🇴🇹🇱🇹🇷😀👋💩🎈
Or bc d CD CBC custody schedule cushion e polling d z oooo add t zucchini so CD by oooo to come
Vtoz vectorizing CD d the o CD bc v
Clock oooo so u sit
@@dmitrisalopaev3051 o pi ojj jjjojjj j jjo om j j kkb pi ojj o om o pi o om om oojo pi ojj oooooo om pi ojo om ojo om pi o pi ojj oo pi ooo pi om ojjo pi o pi ooo om o om ooo om o pi om oj kjj j pi oj om pi o om pi om ojo pi o pi ojj jo pi ojj jk jjojjj jo om om ojooooooooo om ojjkjo om om oo jojjoooo pi ojj jjjjokjjo pi o pi ojo om o om ojj pi o pi o om om ojj j jo om pi ook jooo ook oo ook om ojj ook om ook o ook ojj jo ook oooo jojo om om o ook ooo ook ooo ook ojj jj ook o ook oj jo ook o j joo ook oo jojjoooo ook ojo om oj ook ook j ook ook ook ojjjjj ook o ook ojoo om om o jo ook o jjj ook jo ook ojkjo om oo ook ook j om ook ojojk ook ooo ook o ook ojo ook o jjj ook o ook ojjo ook o oj ook ook ojj jo ook ojojjjjo jo k ook ook o ook o ook ojo ook ojo ook om ook k km ojjooo ook om ojjj jjjo ook ooo ook o kj. J. Jjo ook ojo ook ooo o ook o ook ojo ook ojo ook o oj oo jo ook ook ojojo jo jjjo ook om ojooj j. Jj om ojjj jo ook o ook oj jooo ook ooo om o ook om ook ook ook ooo ook om ojo ook oj ook o ook ojooo ook om oj ook ojoo ook ook oojjj ook ooo ook o ook jo ook ook oj. Jjo ook o ook ojojj ook ojo ook ook. Jjooo ook ojjo ook om ojjj jj ook ook ooj ook ook o ook o ook j ooooojjj oo jjo ook oj om oo ook ooo ook oj ook oo ook ooo jjjoooo ook ooo o👍🤣👍🤐👍🤣🌕🌙👍🌙🤣🌙🌙👍🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🌙🌙🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌙👍🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
See time @33:17 if you are interested in Professor John Mearsheimer's take on the current crisis w/ Russia over Ukraine. Basically, America is agitating Russia in the name of "liberal hegemony" per EU & NATO, and we're wrongly accusing Putin of being the aggressor when in fact we are the ideological, nearsighted baddies.
We can safely say today that the goal was reached. Sadly so few are seeing what is actually happening.
The University of Chicago " Why Ukraine is the West's Fault " TH-cam video John Mearsheimer 6 years ago
Too bad most people in the US are too brainwashed to understand what you said.
The Ukrainians don't want to be part of Russia, how is that America's doing?
Nato is a defensive treaty, which is why the members of Nato aren't all piling in on top of Russia right now, and why Ukrainian women and children are being bombed by unopposed Russian planes.
Putin started the war. That is a fact, not conjecture. He didn't try to solve his problem by negotiation, he went straight in with military force. Another fact.
@@mesolithicman164 You know you could dig deeper.
Thanks for taking me back to school!
Highly timely interaction with the greatman
This is 3 Year old
EVERYONE CRITICIZING THIS MAN YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAN COULD HAVE WRITTEN A TRUE WORKING FORIEGN POLICY. WE HAVE FAILED OUR PEOPLE.
His black box assumption as regards China does NOT obtain...During the time of Zheng He, if China had a Hobbsian mentality, she would have conquered the world, but she didn't. Hegemons can coexist....witness China/India, as 1 and 2 in terms of gdp and military power, for thousands of years without eviscerating themselves every few decades like the Europeans...until the white man cometh.
@@zhoubaidinh403 Apples and Oranges
@@zhoubaidinh403 neither. China or India is pushing their governance an capitalism onto other nations as does the US with its one true American Style “Democracy” and Predatory “Capitalism” there is no hegemony coming from China or India… look up the meaning of the word.
Sure this man has written some good things, but that doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. As he demonstrated in this video, his unreasonable hatred for Trump which he bases on econimics, something he has admitted to not understanding... So no, criticizing him when he makes idiotic statements is the correct thing to do. You don't get a free pass to say dumb things no matter who you are.
@@ExodusCore "unreasonable" "hatred" "idiotic" pretty charged terms you're using. Clearly you're having an emotional response to what this man has said (which has honestly been pretty mild. How can you claim he has hatred for that man?) He also didn't only criticize Trump for economic reasons.
I would love to hear his view as to whether commerce can be the force that can overturn traditional geopolitics, thinking more the power of the WEF and the multi national businesses such as Facebook, Bill Gates etc and particularly the inclusion of Chinese companies (strangely exclusion of Russian Companies) as to whether the strength of this organisation will in time have more influence over the power distribution of the world than liberal hegenomy has had.
This professor is very educated and smart.
Who admits he's a Marxist.
Over intellectualize's these concepts, Truth trumps these concerns: the Russian affecting the 2016 US election was a lie propagated by one of the candidates to discredit their opponent!
Not on economics though... nor did he even seem to understand why Trump called out Nato or placed tarrifs on USA's "allies". Idiot even believed that the TPP would be good for open free trade. The guy doesn't understand economics at all.
❤
Madeleine Albright was a prominent figure in American politics. She served as the first female Secretary of State in the United States under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Albright played a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy during her tenure. She was known for her diplomatic efforts, particularly in dealing with complex international issues, including the NATO intervention in Kosovo and advocating for the expansion of NATO. Albright was highly regarded for her intellect, diplomacy, and her efforts to promote democracy and human rights on the global stage. Additionally, she was known for her role as an advocate for women's rights and issues both in the United States and worldwide.
Great scholar and a realistic approach, the book
Mearsheimer, the intellectual bulldozer. Go, Mearshi, go!!
a bull dozer is needed, as the bull shit is piled mountainously high
Go Mearsheimer!
I think Mearsheimer has a compelling realistic argument but I would like to hear the opposite side pushing back to see what comes of it.
Lecture 6:40 - 45:00
You can’t be running adds every 7 minutes… that’s very unfair.
Yeah I agree is frustrating. TH-cam needs to fix this. I also had a channel some time ago and i had no control on the ads and when they run. Probably because this is a very long video yt is adding more ads than on short ones...
My statement is Treat people how they want to be treated.
2022 This explains current issues in Ukraine. He's spot on again
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA.
Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945.
It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, *our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires,* and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal
of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put 'Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25)
Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne (historian), but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. If it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring:
- attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London)
- attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London)
- Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC)
- The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech)
- Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC)
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
*"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."*
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay)
Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
"If you live next to a great power (Ukraine), you have no right to decide your own foreign policy or the great power will crush you." They all smirked. Well, they're not laughing now I guess. For EU schills, sovereignty and nationalism is the great threat but suddenly Ukraine's sovereignty and nationalism is paramount for it's democracy they now claim. How strange! They certainly didn't want the UK to have theirs. The whole thing reminded me of an American at Spectre HQ. The EU flags everywhere set the tone of course.
Name me one thing the UK was not free to chose while in the EU?
Seems more like you are looking for places to direct your political ire than actually understanding
topics and positions.
@@jacobjorgenson9285 Fishing our own waters. Voting for the people who rule over us (did you vote for Ursula? I f##king didn't get a choice). Choosing who can come over and settle here (still not happening of course, since the tories are terrible - just like all the rest). Regardless of any perceived freedoms ... choosing to simply not being in the EU. That's a choice. Not that we really left it in any meaningful way. Nothing much changed because the ruling class didn't want it to.
@@JD-yp9ki UK fishing local and abroad was £850million in 2020, the auto industry was £49 BILLION.
Yes I know, the fishing industry was screwed by the eu. My ex gf father was fisherman until it got destroyed. Ended up in the oil industry at sea. Regardless of money, i have no interest in being part of of a corrupt eu... we have enough corruption in our own government. Anyway, enjoy the whole owning nothing and being happy stuff. I sure won't.
Trump kept us out of war with Russia and did not push the neo liberal policies. Trump also did not push Ukraine to join nato.
I love this guy
First: Mearsheimer's lecture was excellent, very well organized and thought out however being of same age as author I have noticed, observed and seen what has happened in last 50 years first hand and have been dismayed at U.S. actions over and over and Mr. Mearsheimer's lecture sums up my experience living through this era.
Now let me address the 'panel' sitting there, it seems to me the panel is focused on primarily is U.S.A. taxpayer, i.e., they have all enjoyed the increase in their living standards primarily because of the generosity of U.S. taxpayer AND and don't want to lose such support as observed by anxiety in their comments. Running the rest of the world off US taxpayer on supposition US taxpayer is so well off he can afford to change entire world security and economic status is not only wrong but dangerous!
The USA has promoted all states around world to become addicted to USA taxpayer support while not requiring these states to look how their countries can become 'independently sustainable. The idea USA citizens enjoy highest standard of living in world is a fallacy; some yes, but far from all and is not limited to economic status in many cases (too complicated to discuss currently).
I think Mr. Mearsheimer should focus more on how USA's 'liberal hegemony' has caused almost every nation on planet becoming economically and security dependent on USA. taxpayer - which is a big problem! For some reason I do not understand how Mr. Mearsheimer dismisses world population as not being a factor in how the 'mechanics' of world society operates, I suspect he thinks world has 'infinite' resources and no impact on ecosystem, very dangerous philosophical view about life! No discussion of this nature can avoid discussing population/climate/ecosystem because world observations must be far broader than 'borders & security' issues.
Last comment: The panel makes this lecture tortuously boring with their ill thought out overly long comments that turn this lecture into multiple lectures - too much, overbearing long winded poorly thought out comments destroy the positive aspects of the lecture!
The analysis mentioned below about the present global dysfunctions does not go against what is mentioned by many Religions and Philosophies: we need to discredit the "I am right, the other is wrong" syndrome. Ways of thinking and feeling can act as positive buffer zones avoiding conflicts: for example most people agree that in life balancing acts are important and that to set concepts in concrete can turn a good point into a bad score! It must not be argued that the progress in technology is not matched by a progress in Humanism when more and more Scientists study and share the facts that Science has the potential to lead to and connect with Universal or Spiritual Values. So public support can help get there and for better being, self development and Human Resources Management should be promoted in a free environment.
The University of Chicago " Why Ukraine is the West's Fault " TH-cam video John Mearsheimer 6 years ago
Shit was comin raw
Domnule nu stiam ca o sa apara un om asa de marcat de asa multa dusmanie pe mine o romanca care si-a castigat tot ce are prin munca,bunatate ptr.oameni di copii.ABa am facut si voluntariat si am imbratisat toate rasele de copii,care aveau nevoi dar erau buni,minunati.Iata cine mi-a aparut azi in carti,unul careincearca sa-mi tina prefica ca sunt prietena cu XI JINPING ,cu PRESEDINTELE PUTIN cu arabi,cu islamisti,cu palestanieni, cu isralenieni,,cu arabi,cu musulmani,etc.Ii respect pe toti si toti ma respecta.Va multumesc dragi prieteni tuturor!
The taproot of liberal hegemony refers to the foundational principle or core belief that underlies the dominance or influence of liberal democratic values in global politics. It encompasses the idea that spreading liberal democratic principles, such as human rights, free markets, and democratic governance, is the best approach for ensuring stability, security, and progress in the world. This concept drives international relations and foreign policy decisions in favor of promoting these values globally.
EXCELLENT
Libereal hegemony may come again if America will produce, represent 50% of world economy. I believe that hapeend after 1947. Many states accept that kind of hemogony when they are in the receiving end, but not in the front line of a battle.
American did flourish after WWII but not from Liberal Hegemony. The definition of hegemony is the dominance of one group over another. A limited government with free market capitalism is what grew the US. Afraid terms of words have been intentionally changed to fit the propaganda produced by those behind Liberal Hegemony.
Take capitalism. It's a economic formula to grow a economy based on individual trade. It's not an social ideology for control that's being taught.
@@MelissaR784 Capitalism is absolutely an ideology and a social ideology, as well as a "formula". "A limited government with free market capitalism is what grew the United States." Let's not forget that Europe and Asia had just had their industrial base and capability blown up, the United States was blessed with what was, at the time, basically unlimited cheap and free energy, and this all happened right in a sweet spot of technological advancement. You might be blinded by an ideology if you aren't seeing those factors. ( And "free market capitalism" is either a redundant phrase or an oxymoron. I'd suggest the latter).
Watching Mearsheimer a lot over the past few months and the Ukraine invasion has been gratifying, but there's one major point of contention which remains. America isn't trying to spread Liberal Hegemony. America is trying to spread AMERICAN Hegemony UNDER THE GUISE of Liberal Hegemony. This is what creates countries like Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Ukraine. As a realist, surely he understands this. I believe Mearsheimer is someone who's simply become tired of idiotic decisions made by a US which doesn't recognize the limits of its power and who is, perhaps, disgusted by our crimes abroad. It's resulted in a country which has squandered its primacy in a mere 30 years, despite a historically unprecedented military advance encircling the globe.
Remarkable!
Excellent stuff
This was my ‘ I fell asleep and this was playing when I woke up video ‘
Me too
To fallow Dr. Meashermeir you need a long span attention.
Mine too this morning and this was the comment it showed. LMAO!
Very practical! Very realistic summary of core international affairs post 1990😅
Interesting the people asking questions in the room seems to me are not fool by the USA speaker
About politically correct ideas: The "groups" who share "some kind of power", looks to me, are interested to preserve their advantages, benifts, ... and create a "diapazon of ideas" that they do not like to be challanged, but accepted as as "politicaly correct ideas". This diapozon of ideas is not a part of any document. It is implied. I have seen it in public schools. President Trump was against "politicaly correct ideas" but right now, some of his suporters are against vacination for wich HE worked very hard as "something very important, higly correct solution of the problem of fightin pandemic of corona virus. Looks to me some supporters consider vaccination as "A not correct solution"
My conclusion is: To fight agains a status quo, some people attac "Politically correct idea" that represenr interest of that group. When they take or lose power they start to create a new diapazon of "Politically correct ideas" that fits with their personal interest. In this case most of them are apparatchiks. They believe that they are fighting for their egzistence. It is easy to forget "moral values" in the battle to survive. They believe, that latte, they can do a damaging control, repear.
The gentleman asked about illiberal liberalism, not illiberal democracy. I wish someone clarified with him so John could have given the correct answer.
How did liberalism become bullyisim?
By expecting everyone else to become liberal too
Word!!!! Actually that should be the name of his book 😜
Hard to imagine why this doesn't make sense to the majority!
Gee do these people know this issue better than EVERYONE else…..
Voting rights are the issue ?
Here's my two cents worth having listened to several of Mearsheimer's speeches throughout the world. The only way to understand Mearsheimer (Mearsh)' is to accept vast, sweeping generalizations, (as was already mentioned in previous criticisms by some of his academic contemporaries) although to his credit he NEVER claimed his theory explains everything. In other presentations he describes this term "populism" differently depending on the jurisdiction in which he's presenting. As it relates to his Hungarian example, given Hungary is a neighbour of Romania, he says the prime minister of Hungary, Orban, is happy to trample fundamental "inalienable human rights", rejecting politically correct dogma. Unfortunately Mearsh does not express what Hungary is actually contesting in the context of rejecting certain "inalienable rights". News flash: They relate to rejecting same sex marriage, and reaffirms their right to privilege canonical Christian pillars, such as traditional marriage between man and woman, limits on abortion, strictly two sexes, throwing out seditious, and corrupting concepts related to teaching anal sex to elementary school children, and trans bathroom issues, to name a few. Mearsh is either unaware or doesn't have the time to explain that Orban is not interested in the liberal left, Marxist political correctness path, a reaction against which America saw its greatest peaceful political revolution in the election of Donald Trump. In the same vein of "populism" (which he is currently at a loss to explain - see my final evaluation related to Mearsh's work below). Which is why Orban is comfortable saying that Hungarians are alright with "illiberal liberalism". Yet Mearsh does not make this distinction and instead refers to "inalienable rights" being violated in Hungary. A reckless claim. He evidently doesn't understand this supremely important nuance, and is devoid of explaining the deep influence of cultural Marxism on "liberalism". To give him benefit of the doubt, perhaps time constraints didn't allow him to go into detail, but nonetheless you'd think that a presentation taking over 2 hours would allow him to qualify his remarks, but he didn't. So sad, he couldn't/wouldn't give the respect due to the developments among the V4 nations, a bulwark against the excesses of an unelected unaccountable Brussels. There would so much more to say about this subject (such as Brussel's insistence on population exchange through mass migration, with the help of unelected NGO's, and the concomitant obvious excesses left unchecked until certain countries that have not taken part in colonizing activities in their history, are saying they're opting out of a Western driven neo-communist drive to enslave Europeans under the guise of democracy). Hence I don't believe he is as informed (assuming this talk published near the time of the talk in Nov. 2018?) as one would expect relative recent developments within the EU context. Mearsh may not realize it, but his bias on world affairs is tainted with the very bias he claims other nations have legitimately have had, confronting U.S. hegemony. Lastly the thought that the U.S. needed the Soviets to defeat Japan, IMO this is totally outrageous. The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Sorry Mearsh. So much to say, so little space. That is not to say that Mearsh doesn't have legitimacy relative his academic contribution, and I agree with a lot of his points, (but I vehemently disagree that there was nothing the Americans could do about leaving Eastern Europe at the hands of the Soviets, in 1945, they dropped two atomic bombs on Japan). Furthermore, they left Hungary high and dry, when it came to the revolution of 1956, it appears they may be leaving the Kurds high and dry, given recent developments about pulling out of Syria, (granted this was not known during the time of Mearsh's talk here). He's right in that American hubris kept the U.S. naive, while the KGB were laughing at them, compared to their upstart (continuation of OSS) CIA. Basically the power of unfettered capitalism and cost accounting won the day. Also I disagree with Mearsh's notion that the U.S. pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese. Except it is not so much the U.S. as it is the DNC that pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, with their insistence on "Russian Collusion" in Trump's election. The DNC's rabid, Machiavellian insistence on falsely accusing the Trump administration with Russian collusion, has alienated Russia. Lastly, what I hold most fascinating is that Mearsh does not spend even an iota of time contemplating the probabilities that in fact any U.S. administration would have been motivated by looting foreign nations, (consider neo-con Halliburton in Iraq) that is deep corruption within the U.S. state department, enabled and promoted by silent powerful partners that stood to gain from privileged status, the very like that is only now coming to light in context of Ukraine, (George Soros deploying his wealth to foment the Orange revolution) and let's not forget Uranium 1 deal involving Hillary Clinton. In other words KLEPTOCRACY. Hence Mearsh' simplistic generalizations, and covering for the corruption of the elite U.S. political class. Of course let's not forget that the (Chinese) CCP is likely as big a Kleptocracy if NOT LARGER THAN THE U.S.. Lastly what crimes against minorities is the Romanian woman at the end (right of the panel) referring to in the U.S.? Based on the final questions posed by this panel, it is evident that they, are globalists, as they express their fear of populism. Ironically, apparently these panelists aren't aware that Mearsh's entire point is that the threat of political liberalism, which this panel is enamoured with, is militarism, which endangers the world. Paradoxical. Evidently surprising to this panel.
Thorough articulate assessment. Where is your channel?
@@BoomerZman77 I am honoured by your comment. I was frustrated, by the apparent lack of understanding of Central and Eastern Europe, by so called "pundits" that evidently have not taken the time to study what is actually going on in these regions, and prefer to cash in, on generalizations. Is this a situation authors are milking their legacy (reputation)? Perhaps. To answer your question: My channel is th-cam.com/channels/4RSzwDQ4-tozncQWWT2R8w.html?view_as=subscriber, I am not a political analyst although sometimes I feel like one. Regards.
@@SteveGarai same for his lack of understanding of China. He projects American exceptionalism thinking and behaviour onto them, when in reality most Asian countries were not colonised or bullied by the Chinese despite their historical hegemony in the region. That disconnect between East and West persists to this day.
I can also tell you that for now, most Chinese are supportive of the CCP because of China's growth and prosperity. His point of stoking nationality stands, but most youth in China are more sophisticated and educated.
Kleptocracy in China was worse before Xi Jinping's time and his clampdown over the years is one of the reasons why a lot of Chinese fled or buy homes overseas. It's not perfect, but at least there are actions done to mitigate it. The US, on the other hand, is a clear plutocracy that's legally protected.
@@pr0newbie Thanks for your thoughts, and comment.
Reading between the lines of your rant.....You seem to equate Fascism (I.e. populism) with Christian values, good manners, old fashioned common sense, and a healthy fear and loathing of filthy foreigners......Now......Where have we heard this before?
Very interesting, shows us the world ante covid! How far have we come, what have we lost in such a short Term of time.....
😂 good work
I love John's views and fully agree. However at 32:30 about the Bush doctrine, he's not mentioning the 9/11-event which any nation would take as a declaration of war (or simply use it as excuse), hence the Middle-east to pieces now. It might turn off part of the audience..
Yes, and he doesn't count Afghanistan as a mistake, like Iraq 2003. I wish someone had asked him about that. Also, with the cohort that seems to be on this discussion, I don't see any mention of 9/11 non-MSM thinking, so I won't bother with that.
9/11 was done mostly by a group of individuals from Saudi Arabia with Ben Laden (made by the American Gov to sabotage the former USSR) at the center front. The Afghans allowed Ben laden in their territories which made the American’ assault justify, but Iraq nope...They were looking for weapon of mass delusion. So, will you say Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Libya were part of declaration of war? Super power have the tendency to invade other places just to conquer and to exploit.
It's a great discussion, but regarding the topic about the nature of "illiberal democracy", I think that Mearsheimer takes the term "illiberal" too literally. My personal understanding of "illiberal" in such a context is that "liberalism" is thought to mean roughly something like "moralistic grandstanding and imperialism using liberal rights as pretext", and the word "illiberal" is used to express a rejection of such.
What is this, the John Mearsheimer fan club?
Such a pity that the audio reverberations should not have been avoided with simple techniques. Sorry, hard to listen to.
America's claim of spreading democracy shouldn't be taken at face value. The US ignored the democratic vote in Afghanistan and basically installed Karzei and his brother as dictators. The US also overrode the desires for independence by the Kurdish regions of Iraq.
America is only interested in spreading capitalism around the world, free market neo liberal capital not liberal democracy. If the two coincide then great, if they don't, the former always takes precedence over the latter.
He's right on in most areas, other areas not so, somehow leaves out the power of individuals with huge wealth pools in the western economic structure who kill for great wealth. and under the guise of the great liberal democracy lie.
I'm 27 minutes into this, and begin to wonder if John discussed social contract hierarchies above and beyond the Nation State. Is class structure ever discussed? The rich and powerful are their own rogue Nation State with no regard for the concept of inalienable rights for everyone.
That's because it is that wealth that pays for his speaking gigs.
Things he is wrong on are stuff concerning economics. The guy doesn't seem to understand it at all.
1:05:42 how can this dude say that the liberal hegemony label didn’t align with policy, Mearsheimer had referencing Madeline Albright and the bush doctrine throughout his entire explanation of the theory. He just said that there was no evidence when he was just told it just now in the first half of this event. He must think people in the room are stupid
Shame we had to listen to the plodder who spoke after JM. Like most career politicians, Former Ambassador Celac has mastered the art of talking a lot and saying very little. Save yourself. Skip from 46.04 - 1.00.00
, btpý _ý, ýwh etch Becca cab 6 cbvv b :+and v j&rrrr
I want to know what he is saying now
Using as an example George Bernard Shaw is entering straight into the Fabian Ideology.
I fell asleep with TH-cam on and somehow I got to this
The problem is not that US spreads liberalism, but it gathers resources. Oil in Irak had more weight than lack of human rights in there. Napoleon armies spread ideas of french revolution in Europe but in the same they plundered it
Eliza Gheorghe ("Peace love and dope: 26:37)
Are people listening to this guy professor John j mearshimear
Can anybody tell me when is & was Jhon Mearsheimer wrong ?
He may be wrong in thinking people in charge of the policy making in the US will finally listen to him. Wrong. They did not, are not, and will not. I think this is a tragedy.
i like the 1:56:39 question. he pointed out that china is fragile from inside and i very much agree with it
This is exactly what you don't know about China. I found that almost all foreign researchers believe that the CCP does not have the so-called correctness of governance. This is really ridiculous. I can tell you responsibly that the vast majority of Chinese believe that the CCP has a "mandate of heaven" in the sense of traditional Chinese culture.
Human Rights has been one of the most successful policies forwarded by western democracies ever. The idea that the life of a person in the developing world is of equal value to the life of an American is what compels us to act when we should. The trick is knowing our limits. You can see this playing out with great drama in the vaccine distribution debate. How many healthy, young Americans should be vaccinated ahead of elderly, weak non-Americans?
The most successful Human Rights policy was and is the policy that ended slavery World Wide, *See: Abolition of Slaver Act BritishHouseCommons 1833,* from that point in Human History to this day roughly 200yrs, the population of earth went from 1billion to 8billion with the largest average increase in personal wealth ever recorded in Human History.
Humanity owes England (1833) and the USA (1865 American Civil War) for their very existence.
As for vaccinations, Old Young, who should go 1st....matters little, we all must be vaccinated, it should have been completed 12 months ago, but yet, here we are still living with Covid because some people (20%?) REFUSE to be vaccinated.
I think that it is very shortsighted and irresponsible behavior on their part.
P.S. I waited for as long as I could, I got my second Covid Shot on Oct 16th, I think that the vaccin is largely a placebo so it *"probably"* doesn't matter.
@@tommyodonovan3883 Oh no you are wrong, Haiti was the first country who led a successful slave revolt in 1804 to end slavery at their doorsteps. Then, they helped Simon Bolivar el Libertador to liberate many countries in South America. The Greeks asked them to help in the revolution against the Ottoman’s empires in 1821 ( they provided coffee to the Greeks to sell to buy guns and some individuals). After the slaves revolt in Haiti in 1804, the British understood it will be a problem for their Caribbean’ colonies. They fear they might a revolution the decided to enact the Abolition of Slaver Act. On the American side, John Brown led a revolution to attack a government building in Virginia to get weapons. So, it was on unsuccessful. Nat Turner revolted against the slavery system and so many attempted to do a revolution which were unsuccessful. Finally, they had to go over a civil war after many mini revolutions. Just one advice check a history book before you mislead the audience.
john- the politics it self.
Liberalism is over with! My good friend
The word mistake should not be used in discussing international affairs.
I have never been invited.
"Nationalism" is not the correct term. "Communitarianism" is better. And communitarianism includes family, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, etc. It is obviously a huge part of human nature, but especially in the modern world, where increasing economic globalization means we interact with people from diverse cultures, it has become problematic. But do we want to be morons, who never leave the confines of our home towns, and see every stranger as a threat. Or do we want to pursue a cosmopolitan world view, and understand that other communities are different, but we share a common humanity. I think communitarianism is most fundamental when your community is threatened, and you come together to defend one another. But the fact that we are all individuals means that our sense of community overlaps. We are simultaneously members of a diverse range of communities. Once we go beyond the community of people we personally know, onto the level of "imagined communities," then communitarianism becomes increasingly fallible and dangerous.
another liberal idiotic argument
@@eternalsunshine313 ohhhh, insightful.
People often see a fondness and regard for ones home as patriotism. other people's homeland can be seen as their nationalism. It's a matter of perspective and a dangerous perspective at that.
36:10 Both secretary told there is no threat of Russia, after 36:30
before Trump the Europeans were putting it 20% tax on American autos. sugar daddy America was only putting to 2% tax on German cars.Trump said that's going to stop. open free trade with Europe has been one way. Trump put end to that
He also applied tariffs on China and killed a lot of midwest farmers careers as well as land. Again, we paid out subsidies to take that hit. Lets Go Bonespurs!
@@buckseedamerica2743 Yes, and it was temporary. If the virus leak had not happened in China the USA would have had a deal with them and things would have worked out perfectly. Funy how the virus suddenly appeared in that country when the the USA was starting to pressure them.
I think it’s vital first of all for America to be United with the allies in the free world and perhaps seek possibility to cooperate with Russia vying “compete” with China, the biggest threat security concern to the world. But yet there is another concern for a stringer Russia that is try to restore the land of old Soviet Union,?that also would be a potential threat to America too. I think America need to be more United and not just focus on race division, transgender, or being manipulated by certain ideology.
'America', ie. USA, is the only belligerent force on the international stage. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The first guy is rambling on and on
Also the mic is painful =(
Dear Professor Mearsheimer,
Whilst I admire the intellectual thought invested in your definitions of "liberal democracy", "Nationalism" and the reality of your analysis of historical USA stupidity in determining its policies and approach to the rest of the world, I am left surprised and frustrated by your summary of the future for the State of Israel i.e. a choice between 'apartheid' or 'bi-nationalism' leading to the end of Zionism. The aspect missing from the intellectual thinking and its conclusions is the element of geography. You explain how land gets divided up into Nation States by common agreements to separate ethnic groups: the Czech Republic and Slovakia: the Serbs and Croatians etc etc. And you explain that the people in Catalonia want to govern themselves by themselves v.a.v. Spain as do the Vietnamese v.a.v. France/China/USA & as do the Palestinians v.a.v. Israel. But in your "realism" you have no solution for us here in Israel when we are faced with Palestinian Nationalism (i.e. they don't want to be told by Israel as to how to govern themselves) and at the same time we are also faced with a geographical reality. If a two state solution were adopted, then the Palestinian government could emplace artillery guns in the Palestinian town of Tulkarm which is on the high ground of the "West Bank" just 15 kilometers from our town of Netanya which is on the shores of the Mediterranean sea. So when they fire their guns, we can choose to drown in the sea or fight for our lives. Who will write a contract determining the clauses in a "Two State Solution" in which we can find definitions of "trust", of "honourable behaviour" and of "mutual friendship" which can be relied upon in an indeterminable long term future?
Many things prof. Mearsheimer says are right. But he is wrong in many things too.
Thus he is drawing wrong conclusions.
Two points:
1. we are both individuals and social at the same time...and as such, no individual or society enjoys diktators
2. Russia didn't like Nato expansion east...but that still doesn't mean they had to invade Ukraine and do what they do there...and lie and lie about everything.
On your first point: Whole lot of germans seemed to enjoy dictatorship in 1930's after those who didn't enjoy were put to camps. So do many Chinese people today who enjoy economic growth that has happened during their communist dictatorship.
On your second point: If I've understood anything about Mearsheimer's thinking, he doesn't say Russia had to do anything. What he s saying is that great powers do whatever they think they can in order to secure their vital interests. And if Russia see that lying about stuff serves their interests then they will do it. At the moment it looks like Russia calculated wrong what it can do since USA and Europe seem to think it is in their interest to arm Ukraine and stop Russia.
God help me as I age; I don't want to speak so slowly.
...in reference to the gentleman speaking directly after Mearsheimer.
Oh my god. Can the Romanian ambassador be anymore wordy and long winded?
Interesting. But did his miscalculate Putin ?
Eliza Gheorghe is a cutie
Eugenia Gusilov is 🔥 as well :-) Romania has intelligent and beautiful women...the perfect combination!
The Romanian who likes USA so much: " Why were we given to the Russian serial killer?" Well, because you were in kahoots with the Nazi Germany, therefore a legitimate spoils of war. Same goes for all the Baltic states. Professor was too nice to say that.
All the Baltic States "in kahoots with the Nazi Germany"? First, when USSR first invaded these states they were sort of "given" to USSR (not to Russia) by Nazi Germany. Later, when Nazi Germany invaded them, they were not independent states but part of the USSR.
At his last days, Hitler wished that would happen. But American had no intention to fight another war.
If all states in the world are liberal democracies, it is possible to eleminate wars?
Well, let's look at the state of America. Last year's they had over 100,000 fatal drug overdoses and over 40,000 gun murders. If that's your idea of the shining house on the hill , I wish you good luck
Yes.
1:11:20 that Romanian lady 5 years ago thought this benefits would last forever
Not sure why John dislikes trump. Trump agrees with you that rational thinking is required in the geopolitical sphere. Trump won.
TDS
He clearly approves of Trump’s view of IR, just not his application. Also, Trump is so universally disliked in Academia, no one would listen to him if he were too closely aligned with Trump. Trump failed to accomplish much, because you need the “deep state” to be on your side. John is trying to convince that deep state, rather than demonize it (as Trump did).
Book Title too similar to Richard Dawkins Book. Hope Dawkins’s getting some % of royalties.
Mearsheimer sees the world as the Vietnam war. Every war is different.
Can you build a 3d Printer over your city..
My favorite thing about public speaking is the idea
All of a sudden our traitorous government decided to decommission the last soviet era fighter planes but everyone with half a neuron understand where those planes will end.
Unfortunately the population in my country is stunned by barbeques,beers and economic hardship
Greetings from Romania
13:23 wow, what an unexpected comparison of fashism with liberal democracy
1:24:40 I don’t think that’s the list, historically it is the British, the Russians, the French, the Portuguese, the Germans, the Japanese, then the Americans in that order roughly. Basically the US weren’t number one in terms of grudges or even number two, they’re much lower. The basis for all this was territorial and sovereignty. The British forces open trade using opium with two wars that imposed their laws and took territory namely Hong Kong, the Russians took a huge chunk of territory that is northern Manchuria and today its where Vladivostok and Khabarovsk are, the French piggy backed on the British in influencing southern China, both the French and British sacked the Chinese capital, the Portuguese got Macau, the Germans had Shandong, then the Japanese took shandong and northern Manchuria and went to all out war and did Nanking, the Americans had never done that much in history and in fact policed the other European nations to have free and fair trade in China to make it fair (whilst knowing their economy would beat them all), they helped fight the Japanese by sending advisors and specialists to both the communists and nationalists, they beat Japan which basically saved China, and then teamed up with against russia. The biggest spats were the Korean War and Taiwan. But there’s a reason there’s a one China policy and that’s because everyone agreed when China opened up.
The grudges with the other powers sort of blew over since Hong Kong was handed over same thing for the Portuguese with Macau, and the Germans already lost Shandong to Japan, Japan was also the economic model China uses today and actually Mao thanked them because if they didn’t fight the nationalists then the communists wouldn’t have won at all, the US lessens the impact of the Europeans and Japan and only now the spats exist with Taiwan and the rise of Chinese technology. Russia still has control over the land they took. If anything, China would be willing to leave Taiwan alone for the time being if they’d get back their land up north. In fact I think if they were to make a choice they’d choose the northern land over Taiwan. China needs natural resources and water to urbanize and keep people fed. Taiwan doesn’t have those important things. If China wanted the Taiwanese companies or economies, they just talk to the CEO’s to get them to come by giving them a good deal. Xi Jinping governed Fujian where he got a lot of Taiwanese businesses to set shop there. Apple does create iPhones in China but only through Foxconn which hires Chinese labor and has the technology and expertise to create such a complex product. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company. I think China already believes time is on their side when it comes with unifying Taiwan. What isn’t for certain is the territory up north that has right now no clear plan of getting back the way Taiwan was treated when the US straight up agreed it was there’s and only now says no. I think they have better faith in turning the US Taiwan stuff around then the stuff Russia took in northern China. There are actual Russians there now and an actual land army that even if it’s corrupt would still have traditions and experience maintained over decades of being a global power.
As for France, I think they’ve totally rehabilitated their relationship. I think Macron or just France in general are tired of the way they’re treated even when they were the winners of WW2. Even when they won, they were treated still as losers for being conquered. They also had good companies and economic developments that were stamped out such as Alstom, the Australian submarine deal, and even having a chance to break into the Hollywood industry. I wouldn’t say France would be a natural friend of China, but they have a lot of pride. WW2 them losing was an anomaly in history at least to them, where they know they won a ton of wars and were formidable. Aligning with the west hasn’t brought the same dignity they once expected to return especially after the gutting of their economic prospects that were real successes to the French. So as China was open to bolster these things I think they took the chance to stick it to the US and went with it wholeheartedly. They brought 50 ceos on that Macron trip and had the biggest welcome and deals including Alstom helping with more infrastructure technology, and nuclear energy development for China to transition out of coal. They were so certain of this China outright stopped buying or getting coal to use for power and even had intermittent power restrictions imposed at certain times in the day to not use up all the power they had remaining or increase the demand for coal. Even then, the biggest thing is the technology particularly with Alstom who at one point built semiconductors and microchips. Even if parts of their company were bought out, the infrastructure and talent plus research and education to create the technology doesn’t disappear from France. They’re getting China to help build their airbus airplanes. If semiconductors are so necessary for cars, what would be the case for airplanes, and they’re getting China to make them. The liberal hegemony stuff has really shattered the real advantages they had up to the 2000s, it’s remarkable that people in government still align with it regardless
As much as I appreciate Mr. Mearsheimer’s intellectually stimulating ideas, I find that the whole discussion remains stuck within a sea of “isms” i.e. Liberalism, Realism, Nationalism, Communism, Capitalism...already the first two of which seem so vague and difficult to pin down, for they are based on two words i.e. ‘liberal’ and ‘real’ which have been defined or looked at in so many different ways that their actual significance have become blurred over time. Secondly “ism”-terms , in my opinion, hold within them a dryness and lifelessness, likely also due to their simply having been overused so as they lose their effectiveness..., but beyond that, they are nouns (describing ideologies) hence cold, hardly felt...why doesn’t anyone of these historically and culturally knowledgeable individuals ever mention Jesus ?? This trielt baffles me, because on precisely the socio-cultural level, philosophically speaking - the words spoken by (cited) and attributed to Jesus, all his ideas expressed within the four books of the New Testament can be summarized in the term “being human” which means “being REAL” - no matter what each individual choses to believe, Jesus’ philosophy of ‘loving your next and forgiving your enemy’ the most profound philosophy ever spoken and lived ! as it addresses the most vital aspect of our lives upon planet earth: Human relations. So let’s just all ‘BE HUMAN’ !!!
When Mearsheimer talks about realism, he is talking about practical possibilities. What is likely and most probable vs. what is unreasonably unlikely. This is a documentation of trying to implement ideas that are unrealistic, and the consequences they bring.