Prof. Goldstein is one of the VERY FEW, IF ANY modern day academics that looks at historical Sino-Russian relations from a comparative perspective, & recognizes that the mainstream western narrative about supposed "historical rivalries" between the 2 countries are grossly exaggerated. It's common knowledge that the 2 countries come from completely different historical, cultural, linguistic, religious, & ideological backgrounds. Both at one point were very proud empires. The Western mainstream narrative therefore ignorantly concludes that China & Russia are destined to be "permanent rivals", & that "Russia will always view China with greater suspicion & hostility than they view the West". Such a conclusion completely ignores history. Despite all the supposed historical & cultural similarities between Russia & the West, there has been far more frequent wars on Russia's European frontiers compared to its skirmishes with China, & those wars vs Europe have been exponentially greater in scale. Let's put aside the gargantuan conflicts of WW1 & WW2, Russia lost more troops fighting Sweden than it has ever lost fighting China. On the other hand, China lost more troops fighting Vietnam than it ever did vs Russia or the USSR (not to mention other rivals such as Japan). As Prof. Goldstein pointed out, this bilateral relationship has been remarkably peaceful over its ~350-400 year history, despite genuinely vast differences between the two countries. When China & Russia tout their relationship as a "model for international relations", this is not just boasting, there is a lot of substance to it. It is indeed model for managing peaceful, productive great power relations that overcomes civilizational differences.
I was looking forward for the "Could the US prevent the war in Ukrainie" segment, but it was big letdown. Basically just combination of handwaving and "would anyone think of the children?" cliche instead of any substantial discussion. The only motivation for the Russian invasion mentioned is good old Soviet times nostalgia combined with "NATO enlargement forced me to do it" excuse. But how does it fit Russian stragic goals? What are those goals? Do they have any? Without it is impossible to say what the US could or should have done differently.
My understanding is the CSIS war game made a lot of assumptions, such as A) China attacks Japan, which brought Japan into the war on the US side B) China is limited to forces in the Eastern Command. C) China had insufficient ammunition and missiles due to supply chain shortages, and more. In other words, a lot of factors in American favor. But look at the result of the wargame nonetheless. Hopefully CSIS would have a more balanced approach.
interesting, valuable and frank discussion consider Peter V Pry's work regarding possible Sino/Russo scenarios his best interviews tend to be on the smaller channels with particular interest to such issues his assessments may add considerable depth to a future duscussion
Thanks. Please do these podcast more often.
Prof. Goldstein is one of the VERY FEW, IF ANY modern day academics that looks at historical Sino-Russian relations from a comparative perspective, & recognizes that the mainstream western narrative about supposed "historical rivalries" between the 2 countries are grossly exaggerated. It's common knowledge that the 2 countries come from completely different historical, cultural, linguistic, religious, & ideological backgrounds. Both at one point were very proud empires. The Western mainstream narrative therefore ignorantly concludes that China & Russia are destined to be "permanent rivals", & that "Russia will always view China with greater suspicion & hostility than they view the West".
Such a conclusion completely ignores history. Despite all the supposed historical & cultural similarities between Russia & the West, there has been far more frequent wars on Russia's European frontiers compared to its skirmishes with China, & those wars vs Europe have been exponentially greater in scale. Let's put aside the gargantuan conflicts of WW1 & WW2, Russia lost more troops fighting Sweden than it has ever lost fighting China. On the other hand, China lost more troops fighting Vietnam than it ever did vs Russia or the USSR (not to mention other rivals such as Japan). As Prof. Goldstein pointed out, this bilateral relationship has been remarkably peaceful over its ~350-400 year history, despite genuinely vast differences between the two countries. When China & Russia tout their relationship as a "model for international relations", this is not just boasting, there is a lot of substance to it. It is indeed model for managing peaceful, productive great power relations that overcomes civilizational differences.
The relatively recent discussion on China/Taiwan that included both Lyle Goldstein and former Ambassador Chas A. Freeman very enlightening.
Usa 's strategic challenge is itself.
Then by extension-given the paramount geopolitical position of the USA-it is a strategic challenge for the entire world.
@@davidk6269 Hello there :) You're not prof. David Kang are you?
Great talk. Thanks for this. Much of it the mainstream media will not discuss in such a way.
Thanks professor
The fact of China has changed the design. Capitalism versus Communism is front and center on the world stage. Thanks for the much needed information.
Hello from Ukraine!
I was looking forward for the "Could the US prevent the war in Ukrainie" segment, but it was big letdown. Basically just combination of handwaving and "would anyone think of the children?" cliche instead of any substantial discussion. The only motivation for the Russian invasion mentioned is good old Soviet times nostalgia combined with "NATO enlargement forced me to do it" excuse. But how does it fit Russian stragic goals? What are those goals? Do they have any? Without it is impossible to say what the US could or should have done differently.
This Is Like Us this Is A Like USA country .
too much hollywood huh? Many things quite different from reality.
USA Doing Its Culture. Like So Here They Doing Their. They Are Like You . This Peaple They Don't Know . .you Zlone Are Tslk This Topic.
My understanding is the CSIS war game made a lot of assumptions, such as
A) China attacks Japan, which brought Japan into the war on the US side
B) China is limited to forces in the Eastern Command.
C) China had insufficient ammunition and missiles due to supply chain shortages, and more.
In other words, a lot of factors in American favor. But look at the result of the wargame nonetheless. Hopefully CSIS would have a more balanced approach.
interesting, valuable and frank discussion
consider Peter V Pry's work regarding possible Sino/Russo scenarios
his best interviews tend to be on the smaller channels with particular interest to such issues
his assessments may add considerable depth to a future duscussion