Thank you very much. It is a brief, but at the same time to the point, explanation and quite helpful. Could you please add Neoclassical realism to your playlist?
How much does individual psychology influence the political theories of the defensive and offensive realists? It would be interesting to study the psychological profiles of the proponents of both theories. What if we discovered that offensive realists are people with the propensity to be overly aggressive and competitive? What is defensive realists came up as more cautious and introverted? Just a thought.
Individual psychology can play a role in traditional (classical) realism. But most neorealist approaches try to move away from individual-level analysis and instead focus on the structural conditions of the international system (the role of anarchy, etc.) in their explanations. Thanks for the question and insights!
@@NoahZerbe thank you again. It will be icing on the cake if could kindly make videos on application of these theories with reference to current global affairs?
Thanks for suggesting this! I've started a new series along this line, explaining current events in two minutes. It'll be a mix of American politics and global affairs.
Great explanation. So, when comparing the two, I assume, that can find case studies for both in history. Then what determines the way one actor will follow, the defensive or the offensive one? Since both have to do with expecations of human behavior, is this not an anthropological matter? Does history play a role? China for example sought security in the past, famously, by building a wall. Do such historical and cultural experiences of nations not influence, reactions to perceived threats?
Thank you, Prof. Do you mind if I ask, is China's Belt and Road Initiative considered offensive or defensive? if we had to use neorealism. Considering all aspects within it, such as providing alternative development funds (which has been accused of debt-trap diplomacy or predatory lending) for poor/developing nations and also Bejing's effort to gain more geopolitical leverage/influence for China.
@@NoahZerbe Thanks for replying prof. I'm writing a thesis on this topic, hence I posted a question to know your perspective. As we expect that we'll never know for sure what China's motivations are. Neorealism is aligned with such an assumption. Obviously, China publicly mentioned that it's all about connectivity, infrastructure development and economic integration. But we can deduct from data and undeclared intentions such as to increase China's export, boost hegemony/influence and make BRI party countries become dependent on China. This strategy can be done when these countries are unable to pay their debt to China which will be solved through debt restructuring, bailout or debt to equity swap. Some examples: Sri Lanka's Hambatotan port, Indonesia's high speed train, Pakistan's recent IMF bailout. Would love to hear your thoughts
I would say it neither it is a form of power building in a form that doesn't have the consequences of more aggressive decision. It is more akin to a Chinese version of the marshall plan. Though it is a debt trap.
Thank you for explaining these two concepts. I am wondering if you already have a video that explains the theory of power credibility. What is power credibility?
Great question. I'm putting together a video that looks at the concept of power credibility in the context of the conflict in Ukraine. I hope to have that video out in the next week or so. In the meantime, you can think of power credibility as whether or not other countries believe your threats or promises.
I am not sure if you have done a video on Institutionalism yet, therefore I will ask it here: Considering that Institutionalism is based on the assumption that reliance between states creates a dependency which makes war impossible or at least unlikely, do you think that the Russo-Ukrainian war is proving that Institutionalism isn’t working on the global stage? I think Germany or many other countries in Europe are a good example here: Creating a dependency on oil/gas imports of Russia based on the assumption that everything will be fine, seems pretty naive in the retrospective, but if one assumes that Germany acted after institutionalist behavior it kinda proves that it isn’t working in my opinion. Still I don’t know enough about this topic to formulate a final conclusion. What do you think about this ? kind regards
I've got a few videos on neoliberal institutionalism, the most relevant of which is this one: ua-cam.com/video/8hRiHTWuJzc/v-deo.html. But yes, I think that the current Russia-Ukraine war is an example of the limits of neoliberal institutionalism in preventing conflict when states are strongly motivated by other interests. That said, institutionalism may remain relevant in explaining relations between other states, particularly in areas of cooperation. Hope that clarifies. Good luck in your studies!
@@NoahZerbe thanks for your quick answer and the link. Recently watched a lecture of mearsheimer online and today I found your channel, which has raised my interest in IR once again. Already watched a handful of videos, keep up the good work!
You are great Professor, you are simplifying the complicated theories. Perfect
Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching!
@@NoahZerbe Is it anyway to find the whole course of IR
What a great professor you are! The quality of your lecture is excellent. Thank you!
Thanks so much!
This was a good one. It was precise and really helpful, it is a key explanation. Thank you so much for making and uploading this video.
It's awesome. Loved the content and great explanation! Thank you for sharing. Keep up the good work.
Thank you very much. It is a brief, but at the same time to the point, explanation and quite helpful. Could you please add Neoclassical realism to your playlist?
How much does individual psychology influence the political theories of the defensive and offensive realists? It would be interesting to study the psychological profiles of the proponents of both theories. What if we discovered that offensive realists are people with the propensity to be overly aggressive and competitive? What is defensive realists came up as more cautious and introverted? Just a thought.
Individual psychology can play a role in traditional (classical) realism. But most neorealist approaches try to move away from individual-level analysis and instead focus on the structural conditions of the international system (the role of anarchy, etc.) in their explanations. Thanks for the question and insights!
Perfect explanation..
Thanks the explanation is good and the point.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching.
Brief and terse.
Thank you!!
@@NoahZerbe thank you again. It will be icing on the cake if could kindly make videos on application of these theories with reference to current global affairs?
@@NoahZerbe it will be very helpful for us. I've learned more from your videos compared to three hours daily lectures in my college.
Thanks for suggesting this! I've started a new series along this line, explaining current events in two minutes. It'll be a mix of American politics and global affairs.
I'm with the offensive wing. After all, offence is by far the best defense.
Great explanation. So, when comparing the two, I assume, that can find case studies for both in history. Then what determines the way one actor will follow, the defensive or the offensive one? Since both have to do with expecations of human behavior, is this not an anthropological matter? Does history play a role?
China for example sought security in the past, famously, by building a wall. Do such historical and cultural experiences of nations not influence, reactions to perceived threats?
Thank you, Prof.
Do you mind if I ask, is China's Belt and Road Initiative considered offensive or defensive? if we had to use neorealism. Considering all aspects within it, such as providing alternative development funds (which has been accused of debt-trap diplomacy or predatory lending) for poor/developing nations and also Bejing's effort to gain more geopolitical leverage/influence for China.
That's an interesting question, and I think the answer depends on how you understand China's motivation for the Belt and Road Initiative.
@@NoahZerbe Thanks for replying prof. I'm writing a thesis on this topic, hence I posted a question to know your perspective.
As we expect that we'll never know for sure what China's motivations are. Neorealism is aligned with such an assumption. Obviously, China publicly mentioned that it's all about connectivity, infrastructure development and economic integration. But we can deduct from data and undeclared intentions such as to increase China's export, boost hegemony/influence and make BRI party countries become dependent on China. This strategy can be done when these countries are unable to pay their debt to China which will be solved through debt restructuring, bailout or debt to equity swap. Some examples: Sri Lanka's Hambatotan port, Indonesia's high speed train, Pakistan's recent IMF bailout.
Would love to hear your thoughts
I would say it neither it is a form of power building in a form that doesn't have the consequences of more aggressive decision. It is more akin to a Chinese version of the marshall plan. Though it is a debt trap.
Thank you for explaining these two concepts. I am wondering if you already have a video that explains the theory of power credibility. What is power credibility?
Great question. I'm putting together a video that looks at the concept of power credibility in the context of the conflict in Ukraine. I hope to have that video out in the next week or so. In the meantime, you can think of power credibility as whether or not other countries believe your threats or promises.
I just published a video addressing credibility and IR. Check it out at ua-cam.com/video/nVbaPOsiTcM/v-deo.html
Love Your Work!
Thanks man, helped alot!
Glad it was helpful. Thanks for watching!
I am not sure if you have done a video on Institutionalism yet, therefore I will ask it here:
Considering that Institutionalism is based on the assumption that reliance between states creates a dependency which makes war impossible or at least unlikely, do you think that the Russo-Ukrainian war is proving that Institutionalism isn’t working on the global stage?
I think Germany or many other countries in Europe are a good example here:
Creating a dependency on oil/gas imports of Russia based on the assumption that everything will be fine, seems pretty naive in the retrospective, but if one assumes that Germany acted after institutionalist behavior it kinda proves that it isn’t working in my opinion. Still I don’t know enough about this topic to formulate a final conclusion.
What do you think about this ?
kind regards
I've got a few videos on neoliberal institutionalism, the most relevant of which is this one: ua-cam.com/video/8hRiHTWuJzc/v-deo.html.
But yes, I think that the current Russia-Ukraine war is an example of the limits of neoliberal institutionalism in preventing conflict when states are strongly motivated by other interests. That said, institutionalism may remain relevant in explaining relations between other states, particularly in areas of cooperation.
Hope that clarifies. Good luck in your studies!
@@NoahZerbe thanks for your quick answer and the link.
Recently watched a lecture of mearsheimer online and today I found your channel, which has raised my interest in IR once again.
Already watched a handful of videos, keep up the good work!
thanks a lot
Thanks for watching!
What approach would you suggest in the corporate world? I’m thinking classic realism?
what sources are used here?
Why is it called defensive realism when it is part of the neorealist theory?
Great question. It's rooted in neoliberalism, and there are a lot of labels that are thrown around. But it just is. Not sure why.
@@NoahZerbe thank you :)