Interesting discussion. Russia knows a peace agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. But this is irrelevant. Zelensky is going to dig in until the war is brought much closer to him and Ukrainian power centers. Ultimately Putin must pound Ukraine into submission the way the US brought about the surrender of Nazi Germany. Look for the Russians to advance to the Dnipro over the next couple months then engage in a bombing campaign to decapitate leadership and reduce the cities of Kiev and Liviv to rubble. At some point Ukrainian leadership will have no option but to surrender, after which it would be many decades, maybe never, before Western Ukraine would again threaten Russia. That's where we are headed.
Glenn's points are very pertinent. The reason for China's military build-up is not 'realist logic', but because the US is following a confrontational path. China's need to protect it's essential trade routes FROM the US aggression is putting its good neighbourliness at risk, and making Indonesia and other regional countries nervous.
The core element of all this is America's paranoid need for domination.
Taiwan will eventually climb back into China's lap peacefully, and they have no intrinsic need to dominate the South China Sea if their trade wasn't being threatened by US naval power.
In essence, if the US lost all its fleet, which are solely intended to "project power" and impose a neocolonial/Imperial settlement, then China would see that all the spending on military is actually useless - and they don't intend to go down the Western path of destroying their balanced economy through excessive militarism.
In a World of multipolar, collective-security - the opposite of Western/Roman style hegemony - I think china would be very happy to scale back its own forces. Similarly to Russia/Europe.
The entire problem really arrises because of the hegemonic Economic system that is mistakenly called Capitalism. If companies were run on cooperative ownership by law, such as Huawei, Mondragon etc, there would no zero point in "invading" other countries as the "elites" couldn't expand their own control and steal the resources/labour. War would become extremely rare.
This future is within reach, as Ritter says there's a 1-14m chance, but as that is the only chance for long-term human survival, then we'd better hope we don't leave that path.
When you talk to Chinese leadership, John, do you get the feeling they are seeking domination, globally or regionally?
The "Need for Dominance" is by definition a paranoid trait. It is in interpersonal relations, it is in international relations.
The simple test of that is to ask WHY a nation feels the 'need' to dominate. Every single possible reply will be based upon paranoia.
The Roman Empire was the first European nation to be paranoid, and they taught it to the rest of Southern and Western Europe - by example.
Compare this to the behaviour of the Nordic countries among them, today. There is no desire or attempt to 'dominate' among them; paranoia is not a psychological element between them.
Just because someone tells themselves some comforting platitude, even at the academic level, doesn't necessarily make it TRUE. We should all strive to be better than Economics or Business studies.
Perhaps we should also all strive to leave our pocket psychology where it belongs.
Setting aside that Nations do not feel (we're obviously talking about an objective necessity rather than a subjective desire), no, the "need for dominance" is not a paranoid trait. It is a fallacy to conclude from one's not understanding something that that thing is irrational.
You, for instance, have an intrinsic need to dominate nature. You have a need to dominate the snake that would otherwise bite your ankle, the wolf that would otherwise snatch your cattle, the whooping cough that would otherwise take your child, and even generally to extract from it your sustenance. For, if you do not manage these things, then YOU WILL DIE. Consequently, over the long run, the world will only be populated by those who manage, or at least strive towards, such domination. The same applies to States.
I see. So the entire basis for your "Realism", so-called, is that other humans are snakes, and coughs.
But this perception is not paranoid, no sirree.
No, in fact I do not "Have an intrinsic need to dominate nature". If i see a snake in my path, I will walk around it, or if that was not at all possible, indicate to the snake that I'm not a threat to it. Snakes, despite your characterisation (more accurately projection), are usually quite capable of discerning threats, and they do not spend their entire days dreaming about randomly attacking foolish large monkeys.
As for diseases, I was not aware they had volition. Live and learn, as they say. I do hope you are not teaching at medical school, however.
I suppose this will shoot over your head like a Russian shuttle going to pick up the Western cosmonauts stranded up there, but are you really that incapable of seeing the BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS PARANOIA in your reply above?
And, i might add, the equally clear hatred of the Natural World, which you imagine needs to be "dominated".... because of your fear of it.
Little wonder you got triggered by the word "paranoia", Mark.
Me, I accept a little paranoia in daily life can be necessary. Daily life taught me the necessity of that. But because I consciously accept that paranoia, and all of its negative ramifications thereof, I am not in denial about it.
Oh, for sure. However, you're the paranoid control-freak in this conversation, and you call this "Realism". ::Shrugs::
Mearsheimer is brilliant, there is no two ways about it, but what he is doing is ASSUMING that conservative hierarchical thinking is the norm, when it is anything but.
Needless to say, when your country's hierarchies are dominated by psychopaths, then psychopathic behaviour is to be expected.
However deliberately lifting 500,000,000 OUT of poverty, is a strong indicator that Chinese leadership are not selecting for psychopathy.
Non-psychopaths should not feel that need to "Dominate", either Nature, women, children, the population, or other countries.
Another Path is certainly possible. Strangely, I think Professor Mearsheimer would greatly like to live to see this be the case.
"At this stage in the game, there are valid arguments that Russia should nuke Kyiv and show the entire world what nuclear war will be. Only then will perhaps the people rise up and demand the West backs down. Otherwise, we are looking at war into 2027."
It’s clear that the Deep State wants a pivot to China, that’s why they ‘allowed’ Trump to get reelected.
It’s all about “MAGA” and how this fits in to the July 2024 RAND Corporation’s report.
I already predicted a pivot to China or Iran months ago:
https://open.substack.com/pub/fulgurite4779/p/us-to-pivot-to-the-east
The RAND Corporation report:
https://open.substack.com/pub/fulgurite4779/p/the-july-2024-rand-report-and-how
And a recent update on the pivot to China and/or Iran:
https://open.substack.com/pub/fulgurite4779/p/are-all-3-d-chess-pieces-are-lined
Very interesting discussion!
But, if I may: Mercouris' constant humming and grunting is extremely annoying. I wish he would stop. Especially as it plays tricks on the audio.
Later dudes and dudettes. There is nothing of any value here.
I stopped watching this twat 2 years ago. He knows absolutely nothing about Russia.
Interesting discussion. Russia knows a peace agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. But this is irrelevant. Zelensky is going to dig in until the war is brought much closer to him and Ukrainian power centers. Ultimately Putin must pound Ukraine into submission the way the US brought about the surrender of Nazi Germany. Look for the Russians to advance to the Dnipro over the next couple months then engage in a bombing campaign to decapitate leadership and reduce the cities of Kiev and Liviv to rubble. At some point Ukrainian leadership will have no option but to surrender, after which it would be many decades, maybe never, before Western Ukraine would again threaten Russia. That's where we are headed.
Glenn's points are very pertinent. The reason for China's military build-up is not 'realist logic', but because the US is following a confrontational path. China's need to protect it's essential trade routes FROM the US aggression is putting its good neighbourliness at risk, and making Indonesia and other regional countries nervous.
The core element of all this is America's paranoid need for domination.
Taiwan will eventually climb back into China's lap peacefully, and they have no intrinsic need to dominate the South China Sea if their trade wasn't being threatened by US naval power.
In essence, if the US lost all its fleet, which are solely intended to "project power" and impose a neocolonial/Imperial settlement, then China would see that all the spending on military is actually useless - and they don't intend to go down the Western path of destroying their balanced economy through excessive militarism.
In a World of multipolar, collective-security - the opposite of Western/Roman style hegemony - I think china would be very happy to scale back its own forces. Similarly to Russia/Europe.
The entire problem really arrises because of the hegemonic Economic system that is mistakenly called Capitalism. If companies were run on cooperative ownership by law, such as Huawei, Mondragon etc, there would no zero point in "invading" other countries as the "elites" couldn't expand their own control and steal the resources/labour. War would become extremely rare.
This future is within reach, as Ritter says there's a 1-14m chance, but as that is the only chance for long-term human survival, then we'd better hope we don't leave that path.
When you talk to Chinese leadership, John, do you get the feeling they are seeking domination, globally or regionally?
Realist logic teaches that the need for domination is not paranoid.
Is it that you have not studied geopolitics or the Realist school, or is it that you disagree with them?
The "Need for Dominance" is by definition a paranoid trait. It is in interpersonal relations, it is in international relations.
The simple test of that is to ask WHY a nation feels the 'need' to dominate. Every single possible reply will be based upon paranoia.
The Roman Empire was the first European nation to be paranoid, and they taught it to the rest of Southern and Western Europe - by example.
Compare this to the behaviour of the Nordic countries among them, today. There is no desire or attempt to 'dominate' among them; paranoia is not a psychological element between them.
Just because someone tells themselves some comforting platitude, even at the academic level, doesn't necessarily make it TRUE. We should all strive to be better than Economics or Business studies.
Perhaps we should also all strive to leave our pocket psychology where it belongs.
Setting aside that Nations do not feel (we're obviously talking about an objective necessity rather than a subjective desire), no, the "need for dominance" is not a paranoid trait. It is a fallacy to conclude from one's not understanding something that that thing is irrational.
You, for instance, have an intrinsic need to dominate nature. You have a need to dominate the snake that would otherwise bite your ankle, the wolf that would otherwise snatch your cattle, the whooping cough that would otherwise take your child, and even generally to extract from it your sustenance. For, if you do not manage these things, then YOU WILL DIE. Consequently, over the long run, the world will only be populated by those who manage, or at least strive towards, such domination. The same applies to States.
I see. So the entire basis for your "Realism", so-called, is that other humans are snakes, and coughs.
But this perception is not paranoid, no sirree.
No, in fact I do not "Have an intrinsic need to dominate nature". If i see a snake in my path, I will walk around it, or if that was not at all possible, indicate to the snake that I'm not a threat to it. Snakes, despite your characterisation (more accurately projection), are usually quite capable of discerning threats, and they do not spend their entire days dreaming about randomly attacking foolish large monkeys.
As for diseases, I was not aware they had volition. Live and learn, as they say. I do hope you are not teaching at medical school, however.
I suppose this will shoot over your head like a Russian shuttle going to pick up the Western cosmonauts stranded up there, but are you really that incapable of seeing the BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS PARANOIA in your reply above?
And, i might add, the equally clear hatred of the Natural World, which you imagine needs to be "dominated".... because of your fear of it.
Little wonder you got triggered by the word "paranoia", Mark.
Me, I accept a little paranoia in daily life can be necessary. Daily life taught me the necessity of that. But because I consciously accept that paranoia, and all of its negative ramifications thereof, I am not in denial about it.
It's still paranoia, even when partly justified.
It's still a desire to control, based upon fear.
All you are doing is digging your hole deeper.
LOL. You're a loonie. :-D
Oh, for sure. However, you're the paranoid control-freak in this conversation, and you call this "Realism". ::Shrugs::
Mearsheimer is brilliant, there is no two ways about it, but what he is doing is ASSUMING that conservative hierarchical thinking is the norm, when it is anything but.
Needless to say, when your country's hierarchies are dominated by psychopaths, then psychopathic behaviour is to be expected.
However deliberately lifting 500,000,000 OUT of poverty, is a strong indicator that Chinese leadership are not selecting for psychopathy.
Non-psychopaths should not feel that need to "Dominate", either Nature, women, children, the population, or other countries.
Another Path is certainly possible. Strangely, I think Professor Mearsheimer would greatly like to live to see this be the case.
The bottom line is that it’s a shame that the political leaders in the US haven’t been listening to you guys…
"At this stage in the game, there are valid arguments that Russia should nuke Kyiv and show the entire world what nuclear war will be. Only then will perhaps the people rise up and demand the West backs down. Otherwise, we are looking at war into 2027."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/biden-authorizes-start-ing-world-war-iii-before-trump-takes-office/?
Not interested in watching this.
Meersheimer hates China.
Mercouris is a nonentity
Mearsheimer is an anti China warpig for sure but I don't understand your hostility towards Mercouris. 🤨
Last time I watched him was awful.........maybe he has been 'got at.'