The professor has excellent insights on geopolitical issues. I always appreciate interviews with the professor even though they can be a little perturbing because of the state of the world. But it is always best to know what is brewing before the crap hits the fan.
When people are rational and have humanitarian values; and neither have interest in power or money, they make sensible convincing analysis and arguments.
On another issue a public radio show on Eastern Europe and the election had a lot of mentions and characterizations of JJM ‘s views. There should be a right of reply. I’ve been asking for broader discussion of how the war in Ukraine and how it came to be including have JJM on.
I’ve been suggesting a broader discussion of US Israel relations, discussing the reassessment outline by JJM and Wald from years ago.
Here’s part of the forum that went out state wide in Illinois
If I had a big company, I would like to have advisors like the professor. Why doesn't the US government count on the professor as a valuable advisor? Well, I answer myself, maybe because his advice would be good for the United States, but not for the interests of the Israeli lobby.
What’s interesting is that this type of simple logic can be extrapolated and used to examine the root of these problems. And once the root and/or drivers of the problems are identified it makes it more possible to come up with a more fundamental way in which to deal with them more effectively. At the same time it’s true that you have to deal with the hand your dealt. And that is in a way where combination of common sense, realism, pragmatism, rationality and reasonableness comes in. And it’s no mistake that having those qualities along with compassion are the qualities we would want to see in our top leaders. Additionally they need to be honest, logical and they need to do the right thing.
Unfortunately these qualities have been lacking in our top leadership. Consequently they haven’t listened to people like John Mearsheimer. And as a result of that, that is in large part why we’re in the mess we’re in.
What’s interesting is that this type of rational thinking applies to all of the problems we’re facing, not just those revolving around geopolitics.
As you’ve said all along, it’s obvious that if the people running our foreign policy had focused on great power politics and kept our powder dry we’d be in a better position to counterbalance China’s power. However counterintuitive this might seem, effectively counterbalancing China’s rising power would make the world a safer place. Instead of taking the peace activists’ advice in the 1950s and 1960s, George Kennan’s advice in the 1970s and your advice since the 1980s we’ve foolishly gotten involved in trying to nation building in places where we’ve made bad situations worse. As a result of this your prediction that “liberalism abroad would hurt liberalism at home” is playing out as we speak.
The fact of the matter is that all of this stuff is really pretty simple. And as a result of that fact it’s apparent that if we were to have simply done the right thing, to have done the most sensible thing and to have lead by example the world would be a much better place.
One of the goals was to incorporate China into a system where there was no need to counterbalance their power. All would benefit enormously.
For example, Korea is now powerful and fully capable of defending itself. It is even increasing security in Europe (probably anyway) by selling tanks to Poland, selling artillary to US which then ships its stocks to Ukraine. Friendship and common interests are more powerful than pure power politics although the reality is they are kind of one and the same; trust. Korean war was not popular among US populace but we are better off for having been there. The same is true in most places (even Vietnam) where US was involved although the costs clearly were not worth it there.
"For example, Korea is now powerful and fully capable of defending itself."
This statement is highly debatable. If your assertion is accurate, why does the US continue to deploy over 24,000 military troops at nine bases in South Korea? Do you feel that there is a conventional parity between the forces of South and North Korea? Do you include North Korea's nuclear weapons in your analysis of the capability of South Korea to defend itself?
"Friendship and common interests are more powerful than pure power politics"
Another doozy! I would be more likely to accept a statement about how economic interests are more powerful than pure power politics, but "friendship"? We should be honest and admit that the US and its East Asian security bloc countries are an excellent case of a number of countries, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and even Australia, showing two-faced behavior. They have massive economic interests shared with China, and yet they join US-backed security groups designed to contain China. When the rubber meets the road, they will have to make decisions. They do NOT want to make decisions that would adversely affect their trade, or their security.
In my opinion John Mearsheimer has been exactly correct about everything he’s weighed in on.
If you’ve paid attention to what John Mearsheimer has had to say about this subject he’s said that when push comes to shove survival trumps economic intercourse every time.
This generally fits into his overall theory of great power politics which is called offensive realism.
He’s the first to admit that his “theory” isn’t correct 100% of the time, but it’s correct most of the time. As such it makes for a very a good tool to understand history, to understand current events, and to be able to make predictions about what is most likely to occur in the future.
What’s interesting is that if you take this type of logic and combine it with the drivers of basic human psychology and then analyze analyze all of it it doesn’t paint a very rosy picture as to where we’re headed as a species. However, as Isaac Asimov observed, we have the capacity to write our own history.
1) Insurance - US military would mean victory comes faster/lower cost. Korea pays 85% of costs assuming my recollection/rumors are true.
2) Nuclear free South Korea - Korea and Japan would go nuclear in no time if US was not there. Australia would go nuclear too but it would take a little time.
As for NK nukes; I don't know. They probably would slip some through anti-missile systems. Its a risk.
Two-faced behavior is normal but I really don't have time right now to talk about it but the trust level of US is very high with rare exceptions.
The professor has excellent insights on geopolitical issues. I always appreciate interviews with the professor even though they can be a little perturbing because of the state of the world. But it is always best to know what is brewing before the crap hits the fan.
When people are rational and have humanitarian values; and neither have interest in power or money, they make sensible convincing analysis and arguments.
On another issue a public radio show on Eastern Europe and the election had a lot of mentions and characterizations of JJM ‘s views. There should be a right of reply. I’ve been asking for broader discussion of how the war in Ukraine and how it came to be including have JJM on.
I’ve been suggesting a broader discussion of US Israel relations, discussing the reassessment outline by JJM and Wald from years ago.
Here’s part of the forum that went out state wide in Illinois
https://will.illinois.edu/21stshow/story/foreign-policy-and-the-presidential-election-panel-discussion-analyzes-conflicts-abroad
If I had a big company, I would like to have advisors like the professor. Why doesn't the US government count on the professor as a valuable advisor? Well, I answer myself, maybe because his advice would be good for the United States, but not for the interests of the Israeli lobby.
What’s interesting is that this type of simple logic can be extrapolated and used to examine the root of these problems. And once the root and/or drivers of the problems are identified it makes it more possible to come up with a more fundamental way in which to deal with them more effectively. At the same time it’s true that you have to deal with the hand your dealt. And that is in a way where combination of common sense, realism, pragmatism, rationality and reasonableness comes in. And it’s no mistake that having those qualities along with compassion are the qualities we would want to see in our top leaders. Additionally they need to be honest, logical and they need to do the right thing.
Unfortunately these qualities have been lacking in our top leadership. Consequently they haven’t listened to people like John Mearsheimer. And as a result of that, that is in large part why we’re in the mess we’re in.
What’s interesting is that this type of rational thinking applies to all of the problems we’re facing, not just those revolving around geopolitics.
As you’ve said all along, it’s obvious that if the people running our foreign policy had focused on great power politics and kept our powder dry we’d be in a better position to counterbalance China’s power. However counterintuitive this might seem, effectively counterbalancing China’s rising power would make the world a safer place. Instead of taking the peace activists’ advice in the 1950s and 1960s, George Kennan’s advice in the 1970s and your advice since the 1980s we’ve foolishly gotten involved in trying to nation building in places where we’ve made bad situations worse. As a result of this your prediction that “liberalism abroad would hurt liberalism at home” is playing out as we speak.
The fact of the matter is that all of this stuff is really pretty simple. And as a result of that fact it’s apparent that if we were to have simply done the right thing, to have done the most sensible thing and to have lead by example the world would be a much better place.
One of the goals was to incorporate China into a system where there was no need to counterbalance their power. All would benefit enormously.
For example, Korea is now powerful and fully capable of defending itself. It is even increasing security in Europe (probably anyway) by selling tanks to Poland, selling artillary to US which then ships its stocks to Ukraine. Friendship and common interests are more powerful than pure power politics although the reality is they are kind of one and the same; trust. Korean war was not popular among US populace but we are better off for having been there. The same is true in most places (even Vietnam) where US was involved although the costs clearly were not worth it there.
"For example, Korea is now powerful and fully capable of defending itself."
This statement is highly debatable. If your assertion is accurate, why does the US continue to deploy over 24,000 military troops at nine bases in South Korea? Do you feel that there is a conventional parity between the forces of South and North Korea? Do you include North Korea's nuclear weapons in your analysis of the capability of South Korea to defend itself?
"Friendship and common interests are more powerful than pure power politics"
Another doozy! I would be more likely to accept a statement about how economic interests are more powerful than pure power politics, but "friendship"? We should be honest and admit that the US and its East Asian security bloc countries are an excellent case of a number of countries, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and even Australia, showing two-faced behavior. They have massive economic interests shared with China, and yet they join US-backed security groups designed to contain China. When the rubber meets the road, they will have to make decisions. They do NOT want to make decisions that would adversely affect their trade, or their security.
In my opinion John Mearsheimer has been exactly correct about everything he’s weighed in on.
If you’ve paid attention to what John Mearsheimer has had to say about this subject he’s said that when push comes to shove survival trumps economic intercourse every time.
This generally fits into his overall theory of great power politics which is called offensive realism.
He’s the first to admit that his “theory” isn’t correct 100% of the time, but it’s correct most of the time. As such it makes for a very a good tool to understand history, to understand current events, and to be able to make predictions about what is most likely to occur in the future.
What’s interesting is that if you take this type of logic and combine it with the drivers of basic human psychology and then analyze analyze all of it it doesn’t paint a very rosy picture as to where we’re headed as a species. However, as Isaac Asimov observed, we have the capacity to write our own history.
The US keeps troops there for two reasons.
1) Insurance - US military would mean victory comes faster/lower cost. Korea pays 85% of costs assuming my recollection/rumors are true.
2) Nuclear free South Korea - Korea and Japan would go nuclear in no time if US was not there. Australia would go nuclear too but it would take a little time.
As for NK nukes; I don't know. They probably would slip some through anti-missile systems. Its a risk.
Two-faced behavior is normal but I really don't have time right now to talk about it but the trust level of US is very high with rare exceptions.