U.S. Presidential Election-The Clash of Great Powers: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Primacy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2020
- Oct 15, 2020
U.S. Presidential Election Series
The Clash of Great Powers: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Primacy
In the third episode of our four-part U.S. Presidential Election Series, Professor John Mearsheimer discusses the rise of China as a global superpower and the escalating security competition between the U.S. and China. Mearsheimer begins by laying out his theory on international policy and regional hegemons; he describes the international political system as anarchic as opposed to hierarchal, and discusses the implication of the fact that one political state cannot be certain about another state’s intentions. Mearsheimer moves on to give a historical overview of U.S. foreign policy and then touches on the ramifications of a Trump or Biden presidency on U.S.-China relations. Finally, Mearsheimer addresses questions from audience members, including topics such as an Asian perspective on foreign policy, the inevitable escalation in tension between the U.S. and China and what factors might accelerate this escalation, and Trump’s strategy, or lack-there-of, regarding foreign relations. Finally, Mearsheimer considers the position of Hong Kong in U.S.-China relations within the context of his theories.
Speaker
Professor John Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science,
University of Chicago
Read more about the U.S. Presidential Election Series: bit.ly/32FWjau
➡ Subscribe to Yuen Campus Hong Kong Enews: bit.ly/3fxp8JP
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
Americans said that they value freedom of choice and proud of their democracy ideology. But they all the times, imposed their will on other countries. Why don't you let China be China? Let them have the choice of deciding their political system.
Nothing to do with the lecture
I always wondered why America can't just mind it's own business and have to interfere with others affairs. This gives me some understanding why America always muddles around ...
A World based on realist view such as this Mersheimer layout will be anarchic world. Without US control Japan after WW2, they will militarized quickly and start another war with China. This prof is not proper history student but a propagandist of his own thought… he has theory and he is fanatical follower of his own theory without checking if it is right or wrong. He think he is the smartest in the world
He should have advocated for multipolar world, which also could go along his lines of thought. You are the top on your world. Let’s others be the top on their corner. Maybe this is going to be the case from now onwards.
Would you have wandered that in 1930s when Japan was invading China?
@@linnyh8242 If you had listened carefully it's exactly what he said; all imperial powers seek hegemony and ways to expand it, just like Japan did.
Well now you know. We aims to keep those little yellow monkeys behind the first island chain!😁😆😂
The greatest soft power of a country is the ability to ensure happy living for its people
CCP Propaganda
@@yukiomishima9930 More like american propaganda, eh? This is literally the idea that killed the Soviet Union.
The US is doing a great job dividing it's own people and putting an end to the US experiment. The haves and the have nots. In 20 years there will be 2 United States:- 1. US of Wallstreet & 2. US of AR-15.
Also to have a hundreds of millions or billions of Happy people...
@@yukiomishima9930 so George Kennan, one of the greatest proponents of the containment strategy against the Soviet Union is doing CCP propaganda now? lol good to know how ppl can change their mind 6 feet under ya know?
Great informative show. Thank you
How can a 240 year old country tell a 4000 year old country what to do ?
Mearshimer begins at 3:10.
CHINA HAS THE RIGHTS TO
CHALLENGE UNTED STATES
No body argues that they don't it's an objective analysis
This guy is now my favorite geopolitical commentator. Great stuff!
Mine too
He is literally just short of shouting out "Pick a war with China NOW!" Because he argues that time is on China's side. The longer you wait, the relatively weaker you get. Unless you can figure out a way to slow down, or been better, to roll back China's economic growth. Many people would say that he did not consider the danger of a nuclear war to the world, but heck, he has live a long enough life and he does not give a shit. To him, living in a world that the US is not running is as bad as death if not worse.
He's been asked that question directly before (Should we start a war with China now?) and he's said it would be a disaster to start a war with China. He's actually very anti war.
@@lutherblissett9070 Any sensible person would agree that a war at that scale has to be disastrous. He is not anti-war per se, he is just being realistic.
@@melvinf78 What I'm trying to say is he usually falls on the side of opposing military action, and appreciates the gravity of war. By the bloodthirsty standards of the US elite it is quite notable.
Excellent! Excellent!
😅 love that fly in the ointment detail
President Xi had offered to President Obama not to militarize the south China sea but was declined by USA as they keep sending warships & planes along the coastline of China, spying & threaten China's security. China claimed sovereignty on those islands centuries ago, long before Admiral Cheng He's voyages to Africa in mid 1400s (Ming dynasty). An official map on China's territories which included these islands was published after 1912 when the Republic of China was formed & this was recognized by all the then governments of those countries around the south China sea inclusive the western colonial powers. Some countries around the south China sea were not even exist when china published the said official map. The colonized territories by western powers does not include these islands. When these countries obtained independence, most of them after WW2, they inherited the territories of their colonial masters, which does not include these islands. After WW2, USA had helped China to reclaim back some of these islands occupied by the Japanese imperial army. Pls get your facts right .
It seems like you're making this a moral issue. Respectfully, it's not.
"President Xi had offered to President Obama not to militarize the south China sea but was declined by USA...".
That is utterly false. Xi promised not to militarize the South China Sea in September 2015: www.wsj.com/articles/china-completes-runway-on-artificial-island-in-south-china-sea-1443184818. That promise was not conditional on the US Navy not sailing through that Sea. It is crazy to assert otherwise.
For the US government to have agreed to such a condition would have amounted to the US government agreeing that the South China Sea was NOT a free and open sea. That is to say, it would have amounted to the US government agreeing that the Sea was part of China's territorial waters.
@@Carstininvestments Let's be very hones here. At the time, that's a state visit. They are really trying to work together. Xi even negotiated with Bill Gates about exporting his new nuclear power plant technology to China. Then, we know how things unrolled.....
btw, when the officials promise something, it's usually conditioned, but the conditions will not be made public (otherwise, why you made a pledge to constrain yourself?). This nuance is not limited to the Chinese. During the Cuba crisis, American did pull out missiles from Turkey in exchange for USSR withdrawal. This is not made public until much later.
That's not the point, there is an intense security competition due to the structure of the international system, you can make stories up all day about the South China sea, its not gonna matter whether there is an old map of not
@@Carstininvestments It was implicit!
Professor Mearsheimer knows the usa great power playbook so well, he sees it in every new power, let's hope that's not the case
You guys are worried about China rise because you are so used to be a Hegemon all these 200+ years.
Your rise is because of our $ and consumption.
Not possible internally.
The USA will crush the CCP like a bug.
@@tommyodonovan3883 go to start a war with China
@@kayhuber7855, Western people and nations shouldn't buy anything from Russia or China until the *"Retire"* Czar Putin and Emperor Xi.
The Us didnt even exist as a state 200 years ago where still fighting the natives and expanding west and Britain ruled the world and was the hegemon. If you said 100 years ago i would agree with you.
Let's watch out for this one as well just like the chaos in Ukraine was predicted by Professor John
The video sound is pretty good, beyond my imagination
Scholars of his caliber are a national treasure, unfortunately a dying breed it seems. Amazing to read how he's been ahead of the game for decades, challenging the status quo before the need for it was, and predicting the foolery of the liberal globalist order.
Unfortunately for him he called out the Ukraine conflict more than six years ago. He blamed the US for provoking Russia, and for telling the truth he was ostracized from American think tanks and talk-circuit. Very few platforms were willing to host him. This is American freedom of speech - you have free speech as long as you don't show US in bad light, even if it is truthful.
He's assuming other Asians agreed to be ruled by America. What gives him the right to say so? This guy is a white supremacist with a pen.
A World based on realist view such as this Mersheimer layout will be anarchic world. Without US control Japan after WW2, they will militarized quickly and start another war with China. This prof is not proper history student but a propagandist of his own thought… he has theory and he is fanatical follower of his own theory without checking if it is right or wrong. He think he is the smartest in the world, so does many of his followers
Big salute to professor Mearsheimer, a bright and superb intellect. Unfortunately he was not involved in policy making in this country.
If he were, The US would lose western Europe rapidly and Germany will restore its traditional position over there. He has a very shallow understanding of geopolitics and out-of-date estimate of America's military capability.
@@ozsharpener We need a genius of your stature to enlighten us!
No hes not a War Monger-he wouldnt get past first base
One point I am missing: the factor of the capital elite using the power of states to keep power and grow capital. Example: Capitalists holding shares to pharma or military companies and trying to influence policy of states to their benefit (creating pandemic to earn money from selling vaccinations, creating wars to sell weapons).
Although he is over honest, his extreme emphasis on competition of international security is a great distraction to fixing the real problem America is facing.
Which is ..?
@@mayakuduwudu3299 Wealth redistribution
@@ozsharpener oh, got you! That's domestic though. Nevertheless, a gross unfairness to the all classes and layers of society except one, the super rich. I saw the graph where it's shown how wealth is distributed -- pretty disturbing.
He talks about in other places. In a conversation with Ikenberry on youtube he mentions the effects of globalization as making wealthy people wealthier and poor ones even poorer. Also, I think in a video of his on Neorealism, he mentions he voted for Bernie Sanders. Not that he believes in the possibility of socialism or smth like that - which he doesn't - but as a way to balance things a bit and reduce inequality.
Thats what you get if you rule the world.....
14:14 that is a quote by Bismarck about the USA.
This is one of my favorite talks done by Professor John Mearsheimer. I like John not only because his wisdom and brilliant arguments, but also the fact that he is openly talking loud about those grand strategies. His theory -- offensive realism consists 5 simple rules:
1) survival is the highest priority for states; 2) states don't have high confidence on others' intention; 3) states will act rationally; 4) international system is anarchical; 5) All states possess some offensive military capability.
By driving those rules together, the outcomes are dark, cold and, like Professor Mearsheimer would say -- ruthless. In the long term, the current hegemony will try its best to eliminate all of its potential peer competitors in ruthless ways to secure its position, and that's what the US has been doing in the past century to mitigate the challenge from Imperial & Nazi Germany, Imperial & Nazi Japan etc. As China grows more powerful, John argues that China will follow the same logic to keep build up its military power, hence a military contest between the US and China is inevitable.
From a regular folk's perspective, this theory upsets me in the following reasons:
1) this is really unfair because in this system, most of the human population will live a pathetic life to serve the hegemony in terms of both physically and mentally -- speaking of massive western main stream media brainwash.
2) the human will never unite together and conquer the outer space. There's always going to be an "us" and a "them".
3) the military contests are dangerous and could easily burn the whole humanity to dust. Even if China failed this time, but what about the next time? Even if nuclear weapons are not on the table, what about bio weapons? This is a prisoners' dilemma full of PURE MADNESS.
My thoughts on breaking this dilemma:
1) The simple approach would be to change one of the principle rules -- can we create a non-anarchical international system?
2) To create a "them" outside of humanity so all human are "us" -- well, COVID19 should've proved this wrong.
Lastly, thanks to the fact that Prof. John Mearsheimer is telling the theory loudly and I hope leaders can see through the logic and put the military measures on the bottom of the list. Hope peace and prosperity to the whole humanity.
Btw, this offensive realism reminds me of the Dark Forest dilemma from Liu Cixin's Three Body Problem.
Thank you, great comment!
..
FDR's plan for the post WWII system involved having 4 great powers in charge: US, UK, USSR and China. In a way, that would create great powers checking each other (China and USSR) with the US isolated in the Americas with a connection to Europe through the UK. After that came the Truman doctrine and later the Reagan Doctrine. This last one removed rationality from US foreign policy and lead it to antagonize Russia sending it into China's hands. Now, Russia is not in China's hands - it's a partner some called junior but I could argue no one with senior H-Bomb arsenal can be a junior partner. IMHO, the invation of Ukraine is a Chinese (CCP) nonlinear war against the US that has Russia as its proxy and Ukraine as the US' proxy. Russia, however, is a willing participant while Ukraine was used by the US. China is winning because the West did not stop Russia from invading and did not send troops to Ukraine to defend it. Zelensky just said the war must end before the winter - signaling it's open to assume losses for peace. Ukraine may loose the Dombas and Crimea (which should be Russia's, IMHO) if that is what's necessary for peace. Now ... what is going through the US' allies minds in the Asian Pacific rim?
The Neo-Conservative/Military Industrial Complex plan (PNAC) that led to a ongoing desire to destroy Russia was the single most stupid foreign policy decision from the US in its history. (AFAIK, IMHO)
I disagree with John's choice of word, i.e., "survival". Great and powerful nations seek hegemony NOT because of "survival". It's mainly due to power, influence, coerce and bullying.
I read somewhere that all humans either are born Platonic or Aristotelian. Coming from Latin America I completely agree with Mearsheimer´s worldview since we have experienced it before everyone else in the world. Your desire to change human behaviour and make it less anarchical or in some way integrate 'us' as humans is not corroborated by world's human history; it sounds like a desire taken from some science fiction movie and it's just not going to happen. Maybe you better continue reading Liu Cixin and dreaming of an impossible future.
Professor John Mearsheimer I greatly congratulate you for inventing International Relations Theory variant of Realism Structural Realism that has helped explain why the USA behaves the way it does, and why the USA is a war economy. Much respect for your intellectual contribution to the world of International Relations.
This aged like milk.
Take a shot every time Prof. Mearsheimer says "regional hegemon".
Wowww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your in depth analysis and views. Please share your vews as regional hegemons in addition to the four you mentioned the Great Britain and how it has lost her power. Will US have the smilar fate as but with somewhat diffrent reasons by wasting her might by alleniating so many allies and neglectng the basic needs of the US citizens.? American dream is unfortunately becoming American nightmare because of bullying the other states and going into terrible wars.
Mearsheimer agrees with you on the distraction of many recent pointless wars, but not on decline of US power.
So what should I to
If we follow Dr.Mearsheimer argument there is no point negotiating as the stronger nation will use military power to maintain their position. This is human nature as he argued. There is no right or wrong the stronger is always right.
> Implying military conflict is inherently profitable
You have no understanding of Johns theory at all
@@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542 I did not imply war is profitable. The net result of war is never profitable. He is justifying US right to use military power to stay to be no 1.
@@under18fearless hes ont justifying anything at all. Hes just saying that Great Powers will do anything to stay on top regardless if its China the US the British Russians Germans or anyone else. Again, youre just putting words in his mouth.
@@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542 If this is the case we will never learn from history and continue to repeat the same mistake. The purpose of studying history is to learn from it. Maybe we will never learn as we still have Stone Age emotion as posit by E.O.Wilson.
@@under18fearless wtf are you talking about, you still think that he is a monster of some sort. Its just so happen that throughout history great powers will always fight eachother for supremacy - thats it. Youre the one being emotional and historically ignorant here.
Drink everytime he says "regional hegemon"
World peace is unlikely if such an influential man as JM does not subscribe to the moral of do to others what you would have them done unto you.
World peace is not possible. Mearsheimer is an academic and a commentator, he is knowledgable and realistic. Hence the brutal truths he speaks.
World peace is accessible if he subscribes to multipolar hegemony. The brutal politicians couldn’t be less logical than the street mafias.
Japan's position on this will likely determine the outcome of the China-US competition in Asia. It can go either way.
I can't see a Sino-Japanese alliance for many, many reasons.
@@b.griffin317 On the contrary I believe Professor Meir.. ‘s realism tips the point. It’s on the Japanese to ding-dong siding the American or the chinese.
Russia is warming up in northern Japan
This is not true. Japan will go to the winner.
The realistic way of thinking of mainland Chinese people is particularly taught, emphasized and promoted by Chairman Mao, 实事求是，“seek truth from facts”, one of his greatest achievements as the teacher of modern Chinese people.
can't we have a peaceful coexistence...for goodness sake! we are human, not animals!
I'm afraid you overestimate humans
NOPE HUMAN IS A FORM OF A ANIMAL... THERE ARE STILL CANIBALS.. AND WILL BE AGAIN WHEN THE FOOD IS GONE.
Dream on my friend.... thats never been the case in world history...
Eye opening talk. Professor Mearsheimer's realist view of the world is sobering.
Exactly. He helped develop International Relations theory of realism.
Xi Jin ping said: the pacific is large enough for both countries.
How do you demilitarize the south China Sea? You remove the occupying force, send America home. The other 3 flashpoints won't be flashpoints if America goes home.
Exactly. Leave all the other countries alone instead of creating conflicts to sell weapons
@@aad8637 LAND IS ALL THAT THESE WARS ARE REALLY ALL ABOUT. IF YOU CONTROLL THE LAND YOU HAVE THE REAL POWER.NO AMOUNT OF COVER-UP N LYING TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WILL BRING PEACEFUL RESOLUTION. THE US HAS.ALWAYS.BEEN THE AGGRESSORS PAST N PRESENT SINCE THEY FIRSTSET FOOT.ON THE SO CALLED AMERICANLANDS
Professor John Mearsheimer has a great theory on the clash of superpowers in general, and I think he is making sense on almost everything. Except to me there are still some thoughts to elaborate about the status-quo: while it is certain that maintaining the status quo is foreseeably the only way to keep both countries out of a fight, the exact definition of the status quo around East Asia and whether or not the elite class in China and in the US share the same view on it might potentially be a game changer to the difficult situation ahead facing our nations. Should the status quo being the current balance of economic power between both countries then it is clearly unacceptable for the Chinese since that means about 1/6 per capita income on the Chinese side. It's simply unfair viewing from a humanitarian perspective and no one imo will accept such an disadvantage as status-quo. But should the status quo being China grow considerably in terms of both economic and military powers while utterly restrain itself from directly gaining territories and deliberately expell US influences from other countries, at the very least outside the range of its claimed territories as before the rise of China, and the US gets to keep most of its influence around world despite being perhaps the second most powerful nation in the world, I think there are still real chances for those two countries to come together without serious clashes and it might not be a zero sum game at all since both sides can win economically without seriously damaging the benifit of the other. Even wiith the same level of per capita income, I'm confident that the US can still be a beacon for the world with its values of freedom and liberal democracy, its superior cultural and technical innovations and so on.
The problem is the US think they must always be superior. Don’t underestimate the ability and tenacity of your rival.
You are being very optimistic. Would you trust your neighbor with the keys to your house?
That's what he means when he calls China a revisionist power, that it is clearly unhappy with the status quo and will try to change it (economy, Taiwan, South China Sea, Indian border, etc). That's why he makes the point that it will be easy to form a balancing coalition against China in Asia. Income per country is not a zero sum game but share of total power will always be a zero sum game
😅😮
You clearly did't get it. Maybe listening again?
Me deixe Sr Menn Sr seguro" capitais estadunidense"
Lol. The next talk’s name is “burning the house down”…. What a great prediction of Jan 6
based
I like the professor, but his theory, straight out of Morganthau's realist school has so many holes in it and failed to take into account of nukes and how it changes the equation...
Yes, you have earned 2 social credit points from Xi Jinping..
What would China do if we established a nuclear umbrella over Taiwan? I'd guess their blood pressure would be a problem, but what else?
this guy is so hawkish
Because he was graduated from West Point Military Academy in the US. Of course he wants the US to be the only superpower in the world for ever.
GIVING HIM A METAL IS A FUCKUP>>
Sometimes while looking at others who are different from us we need to shred out our beliefs, cognitive short cut, and attitudes. Or else, we suffer from cognitive distortion leading to a one-sided view of the world. No panic....just look from the other's perspective.
I love following Mr. Mearshimer but I never thought he'd be so wrong about asia or asian or chinese/China. Regrettable he still begin to describe asia with his western mind all the while attempting to convey the impression he know asia well.
Ultimately Mearsheimer is a hammer that sees everything standing up as a nail. The makes for a tidy theory to write books and give lectures but is not a valid universal theory of history or nations.
Um acerto adv uni Chicago
Great to listen to someone so unbiased and objective!!
With Napoleon looking over one's shoulder, what can possibly go wrong?!
Pinakanakapanghihinayang bagay makaligutaan kaibigan pindutin makipagugnayan upang mahanap tunay know this will people for
After hearing this, once again I realized that the only way for chinese to live a peace and happy life is to build a strong enough military force.
Can US,with a former President and an incumbent inat loggerheads about what is or isn't American Stability professional ism in US really expect so many country's to do anything but rely on more stable blocks of country's stability?
How can China sit back and relax when you guys keep Interfering in their internal affairs HK, Taiwan, Tibet, etc...
Mate, he was quite obviously playing devil's advocate. He said its perfectly reasonable for China to push back against the US.
If a country tries to rule the world than thats the nature of it i guess... you constantly step on others toes to advance your power.
Thanks to Prof Mearsheimer for providing us with the proper terminology for this discussion: regional hegemon; the trumping of prosperity by security; benign or malign intentions; roaming (my favorite); etc. But do these terms really help us? I think they do. At least intention, and discovering it, helps me and my cockamamie theory about the possible unseating of the only hegemon on Earth in the 21st century. By the teaming up of two incipient regional hegemons - of different regions. In the decades to come perhaps they'll come to blows, but now they are allied to rid the planet of its current and only regional hegemon, America. How was this achieved? By projecting false intentions, I argue. The intentions of Russia and China deceived everyone including America's powerful and unequaled Intel, the CIA. I refer to the Sino-Soviet conflict, a deception created by the two major communist states teaming up after WWII and Hiroshima, when they were most vulnerable to the desire of the anticommunist war mongers to rid the planet of them. They came together 60 years ago and now find themselves - by fate - in a position to shoot the moon. To break the bank. It is my contention these two states fought a phony war at the Amur in the Sixties with very real and sad casualties. A war which was a declaration that they hated each other and that it was unnecessary for America to worry about their alliance. A war which fooled everyone except me. /// Edit/// Of course, there is no proof for what I have just said. But I don't require any proof. I am a graduate of the 'Proof Is In The Pudding' School of history. If China ups the ante on Taiwan next week, the US and its allies would find themselves involved in a conflict on two fronts. Trying to put down a 'take over' of territory in Ukraine in East Europe and halt China's attempt to effect its claimed sovereignty over Formosa in East Asia.
Why isnt he analyzing the reality of Black Rock and the power of non State organizations or elite individuals which try to use state power in their directions?
He does't need to, it already fits in his geopolitical theory.
I am 100% sure that you don’t have any good intention!
What a dork, he is endorsing Biden.
Thanks
The problem is not a Security Issue, but an Existential Dilemma. We in the West are in trouble because China has created a Socialistic Model that puts the Western Liberal Democrarcy Narrative into question, if not irrelevance.
They have lifted 800 million people out of proverty with their model, there is nothing we can say in the West except that we have done the opposite.
We need to reflect and evolve if the Western system is to remain relevent. China is engaging Africa, the Middle East, SE Asia and Eastern Europe, even parts of South American. They are gaining grounds. This is an Existential Crisis for the US, Europe, and Quad.
1 billon have been lifted out of absolute poverty if you start counting from 1949 instead of 1980.
Yeah well they had a hell of a lot of help from our corrupt politicians and internationalist business owners who decided to prop them up economically because it made more money for them to not pay Americans to do manufacturing here. Incredibly stupid decision why prop up your enemy economically? No one stupid enough to do that by accident. That's corruption, and if not a straight-up loathing then it is an intense indifference to the survival of America on the part of the political and industrial class because it doesn't take a genius to realize that their power would be massively increased. That's where nationalism needs to take the front seat in a situation like that, and be more important than your international business interests and the pure end of making as much money as you possibly can. The interests of the American people and The American Nation should come before internationalist business interests and making lots of money. You see I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't just bad analysis and that if we prop up China economically they'll become a democracy, I don't buy that. I totally agree with mearsheimer's analysis as to what will end up happening, the rise of Chinese military power However, the motive by the 90s political class attributed by mearshiemer is what I do not agree with. These are smart people and they are many, don't tell me they couldn't foresee the consequence of propping up China. I really think Donald Trump's approach was the correct one for our country in that he said fine you know but you're going to have to pay massive tariffs. That's what I think ought to happen to an American company who wants to send its company overseas well hey American company who wants to send your operation overseas, if you do that you're going to be paying even more than you would if you paid Americans because of the massive tariffs we're going to impose.
The impression is the chinese are professional politicians, the wests are amateur and immature politicians.
Prof Mearsheimer is one of my favorite speakers and I always enjoy listening to his views and especially his frankness. But like most American political scientists, he sees the world through the lens of American exceptionalism. To him, the US and Western Imperialist Model is infallible, the so called gold standard and that China will inevitably follow the same path if it becomes a world power. This is in spite of the fact that historically China has never had any imperialist ambitions. China was already a world power during the Roman times but unlike the later, China did not set out to conquer the world. Nevertheless, he could be right but does it mean, he cannot be wrong? On the one hand, he admitted that the US is not a benign hegemon and on the other, he view China's increasing military capabilities as irrefutable evidence it will not rise peacefully? Isn't it obvious that since the US is not a benign hegemon, all rising powers would naturally respond to the former's threat by increasing their military capabilities?
Without any doubt, Prof Mearsheimer is a strong advocate of US Containment Policy but I am just wondering whether it has ever occur to him that the US may lose this battle against China in spite of its past successes against Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union? Or is it possible that in future the world will no longer be controlled by a sole hegemon but rather, a few regional hegemons like Germany/France in Europe; Russia in Western Europe, US in North and South America, China is South East Asia, India in the Indian Ocean and Turkey/Iran in the Middle East?
His theory is structual. He doesn't care about the inherent qualities of any nations apart from their economic and military power + geographical location.
How can America hope to contain China when they can't even contain Huawei and that is even after using the full might of America to try destroy Huawei.
@@wk9378 By military force if all else fail...It thinks it can easy defeat China in a limited battle in the SCS or Taiwan Straits..
I've learnt to appreciate his lectures in recent days. I agree with a lot of what you've shared except in his lectures I don't recall him explicitly saying that the US will win, but he has been relatively accurately over the past years in predicting the US's moves thus far (containment, Australia's alignment and actions)
No stability can exist among hegemons. We always grow an appetite for more.
You are turning blind eye on Putin's model of multi-polar world - where all countires are protected by international law system - the system US is actively trying to dismantle. This model provides better security and stability and allows international companies to do long-term investments everywhere on the globe - this is even economically beneficial. But China and many other countires actually support Putin's model.
China clearly does. The game-changer to this US-China war is if The US is willing to discard its European allies and allow Russia to be the superpower in Europe for its own advances in Asia and North America. Europe is in a decline and honestly not much of use to the US anyway.
Они слепы, потому что лицемерны в этом. Профессор говорит, что США не хотят позволить появляться другим региональным гегемонам, т.к. это угрожает безопасности США. Каким боком? Это не про безопасность США, а про то, что тогда будут ущемлены их бизнес интересны. It's all about money! Тайвань тот же им нужен исключительно как "ферма производственная". Зато орут о защите прав) правда за скобками остаётся, что дело в правах самих бизнесменов американских делать деньги чужими руками далеко от собственной страны.
Кстати он также озвучил, что по-хорошему, задача Америки должна быть, стравить Россию и Китай. Демократичненько)
US have no right to intevene other countries regime. Other countries regime should be fit with their own people on culture, social, economics and history.
well said !
Thanks so much today to all people and friends writeng pagkakatao iyong for gaano puso tunay totoo Diyos this evening blessings you family 🙏🕌❤️ pag-ibig everyone loveth those everything good all country
In 1978 I was in China and Chinese didn't mince any words that in the 21st century, China would be worlds super power
He is clearly obsolete as the Imperial Overstretch is increasingly obvious to all in Asia who see their future economy and future prosperity.
I suggest you watch again, maybe you'll get it this time.
China growth is due the high weight of US taxes and very optimistic assumption that China will be not more a Communist country.
The problem is John does understand America isn't the the America he know. America is fast becoming third world countries it lack the ability in manufacturing anything for the last fifty year it has outsourced. It had emphasize in finance and high-end intellectual design instead of doing the dirty work. John talks big but doesn't understand the tide is changing already. I guess that why he is not being used the any government any longer
Tell me again why this good man was never an advisor to the US Gov? WHy not?
I would worry if US policy makers follow his advice to defend American primacy.
If the first duty of government is to improve the standard of living and quality of life of its citizens, then Mearsheimer's priorities for government are misdirected. He is focused on maintaining America's global hegemonic primacy, when it can ill-afford to do so at this time. 50% of Americans have not experienced an improvement in their standard of living in the last 30 years, that why you have the "rust belt". The economies of many states in the Mid-west have been hollowed out and middle America is struggling. American infrastructure is crumbling, its healthcare system is expensive and failing, and even though America has some of the best universities in the world, they serve only a small elite.... On the whole, its education system is not preparing the vast majority of the next generation to be future-ready in the STEM subjects. America is also dealing with burgeoning gun violence, culture war against each other, crime, racism, opioid addiction, etc.
The American government needs to restore the vitality of the American people before it goes around the world defending its primacy.
You seem to be saying that the US is rotten from within and it's military might is going to be weakened over time as to be effected by domestic issues. Well, this will be the responsibility of leadership.
well said !
You should be focusing the rise of murder in Chicago. Carjacking, killing on the freeway, and economics collapse.
You actually need to go back to Kissinger and their goal was to create a power that rivaled the US in order to ensure that the US didn't become a global imperial power.
This must be the worst argument from anyone!
Well Today China and Russia, signed a Relationship of no limits
Another way for China and Russia and India to create regional security is cooperation , as they did in Shanghai Cooperation Pacte ! And did not in fact follow your war pathful and expensive and outdated theory to regional hegemon as USA did and today it becomes evident that one cannot understand why you are still repeating these theories to bewilder your students from 2000 to 2020 and beyond ! ? ? ?
IT IS COMPULSORY EDUCATION FOR A NEW PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS .
The US hand fed the Chinese economy starting with Nixon visiting China and starting the long history of Preferred Nation Status. The problem is China went Communist instead of Democracy. In the same way Communist China pursuded prosperity offered by invitations to US trade, the people of China are attracked to prosperity and freedom. The Chinese people will eventually overthrow communism and demand freedom. The same is rolling out for Russia including the Ukrainians who are done with Russian multigenerational abuses, and are demanding freedom. All this quite like US history of demanding freedom.
In the context of it being May 2022:
... there is a strip of land, above North Korea, between China and the sea, that is Russian. It almost looks like the coast line there is in direct line of site with a part of Japan's coast line. Also, sort of in a direct line across the ocean with the US/ Canadian border to the East, with Moscow across land to the west, and with Australia down to the south.
A stupid idea ... how much would Russia want for that land in part along side Japan and directly above North Korea, and bordering it, say up to the highest level of the top border of China and at an angle, guesstimate 45°, to draw a line to the coast?
That strip of land above North Korea along China, if bought, as US permanent soil (not property owned by US yet within Russia, but, sort of not unlike how Alaska became a state of the US?)? ... nearness to Japan, Taiwan, obviously, South Korea ... it seems not unreasonable, as a portion for Russia to actually consider it and possibly accept it ... any more than that though, might be pushing things too much. It seems like psychologically, an area that mirrored Australia in size would be the limit, and certainly more, like, yeah, no way in the world today. ... Would it make things worse, if there were US bases permanently there. Is it a bad strategic idea for the US/the region? I don't know.
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
Yin and Yang? ... ☯️
TCM ... five elements ... sheng and ko? ...
13:10 min ... (Sorry, I'm not sure I'm listening properly.) It sounds like a possible discussion about an imbalance in power, either by a result of control, an excess in relation to either a deficiency, neutrality, or another excess yet that is deficient by contrast, or, by a result of nurturing, a deficiency in relation to either an excess, neutrality, or another deficiency yet that is in excess by contrast?
"John Mearsheimer: Great power politics on Ukraine" (CGTN)
Some perspective, perhaps, or not?
Minimum distance between Britain and Europe: 20 miles (32 km) ... ?
Minimum distance between Taiwan and China: 81 miles (130 km) ... ?
How did Germany go with taking over Britain in WWII?
From a yin/yang perspective (this might not be correct):
How much effort would be needed to 'take Taiwan', how much would it weaken China, and, how much hostility would it bring to China (direct or indirect: destructive), say compared with making a decision that, even though Taiwan is important, China is in a position to not need to take over Taiwan, with China being strong enough to be a nurturing ally, and, the goodwill that would bring to China?
How much effort would it take China (with US support) to, say, "liberate" North Korea, over land, a place that relatively is seen as extremly deficient in maintaing humans-rights when compared to China, and so, in that context, would South Korea prefer, to border North Korea or to border China, and, while some may question motives, how much goodwill would be brought to China, if (with US support) North Korea were liberated and instead of being kept by China, North Korea allowed to heal with South Korea?
How much effort would it take China to find a solution to an expanding desert and possible dehydration, rehabilitating the desert with edible grasses and trees, while providing an opportunity to take pressure off of some of the cities, providing opportunities for improved health, livibility, ... e.t.c. ...
Example:
"Town planners on a 'crusade' against TB could help us to redesign our cities post-COVID - ABC News" www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-25/what-planning-lessons-during-tb-outbreak-teach-us-about-covid19/100348914
Questions: if a system of governance is a true dictatorship (not authoritarian) then is it not a system where governance is taken over by a person, without being elected? In that circumstance, how come that governance is defined or limited to a person from within that system? Does it make a difference, in that circumstance where that person is from or came from? If by definition it is a dictatorship, theoretically/ ethically/morally, would it be unacceptable for another country to openly choose a person or group of people for that system where governance is taken over by a person, without being elected, in doing that same thing, initially, to govern? Would that be a regime change? Is it not following the rules of that regime, that same regime? After that though, the governance taken over and ... those in governance, in a position to govern ... and govern, (hopefully, more so democratically than not)? It seems like a dictatorship could be taken over by any dictator and things could go from bad to worse, on the other hand, with checks and balance and transparency, a dictatorship could be taken over, and at that point transition into a different form of governance? Would it be a case of taking out what seems like a hell on earth situation, and or, a path leading to hell with best intentions, or neither, or something else altogether?
Asking for a friend, there wouldn't happen to be someone already taken by someone who is not Mearsheimer, and, who knows a Mearsheimer who is not taken? You know: single, not married, handsome, reasoned, intelligent, funny, lovely, expressive, smiling, doveish disposition, e.t.c.?
Sorry, John Mearsheimer still seems gorgeous.
0:59 min ... "expand" ... "not one inch eastward" ?
... what if 'east' meant:
a communist country and those countries are no longer communist; or,
at dawn, rise, as a country or state is initially forming; or,
the orient (East Asia), or Ural Mountains rather than Carpathian Mountains, Balkan Peninsula or Northern European plain that goes up to Russia; or,
to align, pitch, directly east or as if like what is perceived to be the east; or,
without first being asked; or,
not in a church, and or where an altar or high altar is?, and or,
e.t.c. ... ?
... an inch?
one mile on the ground; or
a twelfth of a foot or something; or
a concession; or
a small area of highland; and or,
e.t.c. ... ?
... ward?
an administrative division of a city or borough; or
grounds of a castle; or,
... eastward?
direction of the east; and or
e.t.c. ... ?
... one?
the same; or,
In agreement; and or
e.t.c. ... ?
... expand?
recede from; or
develop; and or,
e.t.c. ... ?
... not?
nought; or,
zero or one (binary); and or
e.t.c. ... ?
Is it an agreement or a promise? rather than subjectively think what was said and done,
objectively, what was said and done?
Also what was written somewhere, in some notes or memoranda or accord something ? ... which river? Oder, Ural, Emba, Elbe?
One could go to town on that, hey.
0:59 min ... "NATO" ... "would not expand beyond the reunification of Germany"? ... hang on ... how far did they think the reunification was going to go? .... oh dear ...
"Why is Russia Angry,post cold world | Stephen Walt Explains" (International Relations & Politics)
0:34 min ... "the United States foisted the decision to include Ukraine and Georgia on the Europeans, especially the Germans and the French so we were deeply committed in 2008 ... "
0:29 min ... "we were going eastward, "we" means the United States."
"John Mearsheimer analysis on Ukraine Western Lies" (International Relations & Politics)
1:34 min .... "almost".
How come they can't all sit down and say, things have got out of control, let's start again, let's start from here, in theory, put aside agreements which aren't actually working, and say, yes "we" had agreements and things aren't working, times have changed, so rather than waste time trying to force things to stick and stay stuck, what do "we", as in all sides, need to do for where the world is now, what agreement do "we" need to make, now?
It looks like Ukraine could have a leading role in world events, if Ukraine in part exists or in the alternative, it seems like a whole might end up a hole, Ukraine might become Ukraine in name only, and not really run by Ukraine. If China is an issue for the US, on a different continent, with an ocean in between, then, it sure as something looks like it would be an issue for those on the same land mass. If it's an issue for EU or Russia then, it will be an issue for Ukraine, regardless of the land area.
(I'm curious, I have no idea the sentiment in the area: would Lviv, if given a choice, want to stay as part of Ukraine or become part of Poland? If Poland presented, by Lviv, with the option, would Poland want Lviv to be a city in Poland or not?)
Also, if, for arguments sake, a requirement to join NATO, is an administration which is elected and NATO won't expand into an area where elections are held, an administrative division of a city or borough, then, by holding elections, it looks like Russia has given those parts of Ukraine an option to choose, or not, at a later date, to join NATO, rather than in the now, be subsumed?
... and ... for that matter ... how come those areas of the Donbas, are not or won't be recognised as separate? Where does it say that they have to belong to Ukraine or Russia or even be a country or a state? Donbas couldn't be recognised as a territory or a district or a reserve, not unlike D.C or an Indian tribal reserve?
"What were our Options? John Mearsheimer, A Realist Take" (International Relations & Politics)
Taiwan, The Rukyu Islands, Diaoyutai and the small islands in South China Sea are heritaged from Chinese ancestors for over 1000 years and proven by historical maps and documents. How could we face our ancestors and our sons and grandsons when we go to Heaven if we lose any of these heritages?!
John threatened Australians to stand aside with US, or Australia would be the enemy of US. He never thought of backfires. He and US government just never had an opponent like China who stand on its ground. John should realize by now that this world is not US play ground and show respect to others
Hahaha you don't even understand what Mearsheimer said do you?
*"Kill it before it grows"*
The US will crush the CCP.
@@tommyodonovan3883
Over Russia's dead body.
@@lutherblissett9070 No he doesn't. I watched that particular interview very carefully. Mearsheimer spoke the brutal truth. It is simply the fact that Australian mining and energy companies cannot continue to do business with China and expect the US to rescue Australia in the event of war.
@@gregorythompson5826 Australia at war with who? It’s almost in an unnoticeable corner.
You say the US destroyed all competing powers, such as Japan, Germany in WW1 and Nazi Germany in WW2, and the USSR. Why did you forget the British Empire?
US "destroyed" UK's by advocating for its former colonies to gain independence after WW2.
The British Empire was never destroyed as such, in that the political system in Great Britain never changed. The British Empire was eclipsed by the USA as a result of its exhaustion after the Second World War and its inability to retain its empire as a result of that exhaustion.
He said China should trust US to provide it security . How ridiculous ! Who on earth would trust a country that keep waging wars all over the world for past 40 years. He is so ignorance ..
Professor M is an American-made smoke grenade...ASJ
Support 🙏🕌❤️ to all country the geopolitical living with it's terminology for hengemon wisdom brilliant because hope nocoriya though things this with nice there every Thursday
America build china and not trying to tear it apart ,,,thanks v nixson
The professor mearsheimer speaks based on his culture and more precise, his so called ''civilizational'' culture of ruling elites.
Same time that culture is based AND rooted in ANGLO-SAXON rulings elites experience of last 400 years; I argue , that even further than that, in last 850 years ago. To England's third Crusade , Richard the Lionheart.
No matter how he dices his logic; is it applicable to today's world ?
How an establishment in today's world can maintain its hegemony based on keeping down the other older civilizations with more advance cultures?
That is why people like him are called reactionaries, no matter how articulate and sophisticated they are.
- - California.
Arrogant. Whenever he mentioned the word China or Chinese, he raised his tone by at least two notes. With respect, what makes he think that Chinese is not a peace loving nation when US is putting arm bases here and there all over the world? Why only US have the right to maximize power and security whereas others cannot? When US put arm bases at the door steps of China (in South Korea and Japan), how could China sit back and relax?
You chinese tendency is noted
Agreed. That's what they call "democracy "))) making vassals all over the globe to serve their greedy interests)) if you're not agreed than you're dictator/autocratic/non democratic etc.
这么说吧，人的想象里都是有限的，每个人的大脑思考方式都是依靠自己的生活经历和人生阅历总结出来的，比方说中国人就想不出诸如集中营，种族灭绝，往军队上空打核弹，给少数族裔打名为疫苗的梅毒病毒之类的缺德事，米施海默最了解的国家是美国，所以按他的思路：中国会成为superpower->中国会变成美国->中国会把美国干过的缺德事都办一遍
China was very tolerant of Hong Kong demonstrations (more than any western decorscy including the USA) until it turned violent and rhetoric turned separatist. This does not fit with Mearsheimer's US centric narrative.
"The challenge to US primacy"! First, what is meant by US primacy? The US, in its own self-presentation, states that the US intends to make the world safe for liberal democracy. If so, we may assume that the US considers itself an example of liberal democracy. Democracy is taken to mean, at the least, government by consent of the governed through a system of elections in which all citizens with an equal voice choose those who will govern them from any among themselves and may dismiss them from time to time and replace them with others.
I don't believe that this is a reasonable description of US elections.
Next, what is meant by "liberal"? I believe liberal hers refers to a Lockian condition on the political economy: that the governing authority does not control the activities marketplace for goods and services through the granting of licenses for such activities or by other regulatory means.
In this second case, it may appear that the US comes closer than in the first to meeting this requirement. Regulation of the marketplace and its participants in the US are very weak, limited usually to the least requirements of preserving human life and health. Often, as with drinking water in Flint, Michigan, even such minimal regulation has been fictitious. The liberal condition is systematic when the government's control, by legislation of the activities of the marketplace is not really paramount because the legislators lack the independence to control. They are chosen, elected, by means of a system that is dominated by the principal actors in the marketplace.
The US is not a liberal democracy for which it wishes to world to be safe, and US primacy is not at all related to such effort. So, again, what is US primacy?
From the arguments in the preceding paragraphs, the US acts to serve the interests of the principal actors of its marketplace at home. That is also what motivates the actions of the US worldwide. Those principals direct US foreign and military policy, and it is their interests that China's rise is perceived to challenge. The leaders of the US see China as standing in the way of the US in advancing their market activities, globally. This has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with liberal government, which may be said is no government at all in the sense of democracy.
Democracy and capitalism should never be spoken of in the same breath; democratic (liberal) capitalism is an oxymoron.
I think Prof. already agreed on your point.Not about democracy just hegemony.
dec2021, enlightenment, but a bit too late, America rotten to the core....
Professor John Mearsheimer is one-sided and shallow-minded. First of all, China wouldn't be so stupid to be an economic power threat to the US or any nation in the world. China is currently doing its best to better itself. China is too busy to take care of its own social, economic and global political problems. To my understanding, China has no plan or intention to replace the US as the dominal power. The US has been the invader for the past 50 years with about 800 military bases and forces all over the world. The US fought more than 20 wars with countries all over the world in the past 50 years or so. The US has had more nuclear warheads and missiles to destroy the world many times over. What has the US been afraid of? The US is incredibly secure and safe. The US has been containing China with military bases surrounding China and now the US has joined partnership with UK and Australia to contain China. Such military strategy is more than dangerous. So far China has never invaded or conquered any foreign nation. Why the US, UK and Australia are so afraid of China?
China was conquered and invaded by foreign forces painfully and shamefully. The painful experience has taught China good lessons - to build up its military strength or she will be conquered and invaded again. China is building military strength to protect from foreign forces. China is wise enough to fully understand the cost of becoming a military power. China prefers to spend the money on improving the social system, education, social welfare, pension, healthcare and infrastructure etc. for its people. Military hegemony is absolutely out of question and out of China's wish because the China leadership realizes that it won't bring sufficient benefit to China. China has an ongoing policy that it will never interfere in any nation's internal affairs.
The US currently owes more than $28 trillion and keeps spending far more money on the military unnecessarily. The US is heading into more dangerously. It would be very stupid and unwise for any nation to put its security concerns in the hands of the US or any nation. This is the main reason that North Korea and Iran are trying very hard to have the nuclear warhead, because they can't trust the US. It would be unconscionable for the leadership in North Korea and Iran not to have nuclear warheads and missiles to protect themselves from the US.
You are mostly right, I believe. With economic power, comes military: at least I believe so.
Too much sophistry
Everything just happened by chance passively. It is not China's plots nor intention. China just want to follow an emperor's way, not a hegemon's way. Hegemon is a bit evil. 1. when the US declare wars to China, it is very natural for China to prepare for wars. 2. By Chinese ancestors' heritaged wisdom, even in peaceful time, leaders must always prepare military power and stock up necessities for for wars. This is also reflected in Chinese people's high saving habit. This is a tradition, not an ambition. The USA is afraid of Chinese tradition. 3. China expanded its economic power because it has excessive production power during recession. We must keep people work and live so send people aboard. That's also a tradition. That's why you see so many Chinese-blood settled in S. E. Asia since ancient time. 3. the belt and road is merely Chinese version Marshall Plan to find and secure resources and build new markets. It is soley for economic purpose. You see Chinese all over the world seldom get involved in politics, most of them are engaged in science, academic or business. However if the USA intend to, China can turn economic power / facilities into rivary purposes anytime.
These people are fucking crazy!
Are you guys nuts?! What'n'seven levels of hell are y'all doin' in Hong Kong? When this is recorded.
g5, 4June2022
Immediately help Ukraine and Ukrainian people with food, water and other basic necessities and protection.
Ukraine found raising site is somewhere else!
He knows a lot about us history but nothing about Chinese history so his theory fits the predatory west but not necessarily to Chinese strategy and intent. A flawed argument
It’s more like US’s Fall and the Challenge to China Primacy
One sided.
受教
I would love to hear John's thoughts on John Dalio's predictions in his thesis 'The Rise and Fall of Empires', ua-cam.com/video/xguam0TKMw8/v-deo.html where he predicts the US Empire is now in decline China is on the rise due to economic constraints. Will John consider this to be the sleeping giant that will be the downfall of the US Empire and in time the US goes the same way as Greece, Rome and more recently Dutch and British Empires.