On 4 April 2024, I appeared on Judge Napolitano’s show — “Judging Freedom” — where we talked at length about the unending disaster in Gaza and how the US does think as well as how it should think about a rising China.
Risking a war with China - seems to be just as foolish and counter-productive for US interests as has been this disastrous ongoing vilification of Russia and proxy wars in Ukraine.
Maybe we Americans ought to think of a different geopolitical strategy? Instead of competing with other global powers and risking all out war and wasting trillions of tax payer money doing so, we ought to practice more diplomacy and think about ways we can collaborate with other world powers to make Earth a better place to live in - for ourselves and all the rest of the species living on this planet.
It seems to me risking war as a way to solve our problems is a fool's errand. Wasteful and counter-productive, whether it be Russia, China or whatever other country the US wants to dominate and control.
Yes. Was the first time I found myself in disagreement with many of his illuminating geopolitical thoughts. Why is gunboat diplomacy the only statesman craft that the United States now employs these days? Didn't we already agree to unification of Formosa - an island full of Chinese who speak Chinese - and it would in the future become part of mainland China? Why all of a sudden this dire threat to risk World War III? It's just more US militarism gone amok, IMO.
Why troops? Isn't that sending the message that we want to "dominate" in SE Asia, and our track record there is ugly. Let's trade, maybe negotiate some protective tariffs, but Taiwan -- the people -- are Mandarin-speaking, well educated and enjoy good relations with China, especially as Taiwan's #1 trading partner. Boy, maybe I've become a little isolationist with these current trends.
Isolationists must have been disappointed, though, Mr. Mearsheimer is not one of them, but a proponent of offshore balancing.
He wrote in 2015, "The purpose of American power should be to ensure that the United States remains a hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, and that there is no regional hegemon in Eurasia."
That's why he strongly argues that the U.S. should stop playing with fire in Europe and the Middle East, and concentrate on minimizing the possibility of China achieving regional hegemony in Asia.
Professor Mearsheimer is a bulldog and consistent in his arguments. This was enjoyable to watch. People who don't decide for themselves which side they take on this issue will end up being affected anyway, one way or the other. Better to really think through which side you're on and try to influence the outcome. I hate to harp on and on about the Baltics, but I am pretty sure that another look at the situation arising there will pay dividends to the analyst who takes the time. Assumptions should be periodically reassessed. This is kind of like the issue the Professor and the Judge disagreed upon today. Situations aren't static, and it can turn out that correct positions stubbornly held can become wrong as the ground under the assumptions shifts.
On the wall on Mr. Mearsheimer's right (the viewer's left) is an artwork, a caricature of two men-- does anyone know who they are? My guess is Paul Gottfried and Paul Nitze....
Risking a war with China - seems to be just as foolish and counter-productive for US interests as has been this disastrous ongoing vilification of Russia and proxy wars in Ukraine.
Maybe we Americans ought to think of a different geopolitical strategy? Instead of competing with other global powers and risking all out war and wasting trillions of tax payer money doing so, we ought to practice more diplomacy and think about ways we can collaborate with other world powers to make Earth a better place to live in - for ourselves and all the rest of the species living on this planet.
It seems to me risking war as a way to solve our problems is a fool's errand. Wasteful and counter-productive, whether it be Russia, China or whatever other country the US wants to dominate and control.
Agree completely. First time I have disagreed with Meersheimer.
Yes. Was the first time I found myself in disagreement with many of his illuminating geopolitical thoughts. Why is gunboat diplomacy the only statesman craft that the United States now employs these days? Didn't we already agree to unification of Formosa - an island full of Chinese who speak Chinese - and it would in the future become part of mainland China? Why all of a sudden this dire threat to risk World War III? It's just more US militarism gone amok, IMO.
Taiwan chips!
Well... I disagree with you on China. I would ask you Should the US dominate on this part of the world and why?
Why troops? Isn't that sending the message that we want to "dominate" in SE Asia, and our track record there is ugly. Let's trade, maybe negotiate some protective tariffs, but Taiwan -- the people -- are Mandarin-speaking, well educated and enjoy good relations with China, especially as Taiwan's #1 trading partner. Boy, maybe I've become a little isolationist with these current trends.
Well written Post...
Also, just in case anyone wants to know..
"WHAT EXACTLY IS THE UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 2030 WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING ENFORCED GLOBALLY?", pls visit my blog 👇https://bibleprophecyinaction.blogspot.com/
Isolationists must have been disappointed, though, Mr. Mearsheimer is not one of them, but a proponent of offshore balancing.
He wrote in 2015, "The purpose of American power should be to ensure that the United States remains a hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, and that there is no regional hegemon in Eurasia."
That's why he strongly argues that the U.S. should stop playing with fire in Europe and the Middle East, and concentrate on minimizing the possibility of China achieving regional hegemony in Asia.
Endless war with no good faith diplomacy is what fools advocate.
Professor Mearsheimer is a bulldog and consistent in his arguments. This was enjoyable to watch. People who don't decide for themselves which side they take on this issue will end up being affected anyway, one way or the other. Better to really think through which side you're on and try to influence the outcome. I hate to harp on and on about the Baltics, but I am pretty sure that another look at the situation arising there will pay dividends to the analyst who takes the time. Assumptions should be periodically reassessed. This is kind of like the issue the Professor and the Judge disagreed upon today. Situations aren't static, and it can turn out that correct positions stubbornly held can become wrong as the ground under the assumptions shifts.
John, what do you think of your friend Barry Posen’s February article in Foreign Policy? Thank you.
On the wall on Mr. Mearsheimer's right (the viewer's left) is an artwork, a caricature of two men-- does anyone know who they are? My guess is Paul Gottfried and Paul Nitze....
Recapitulations of that discussion here:
https://complexiathesinker.substack.com/p/llm-over-prof-john-mearsheimer-us