[China Lecture Series] 32강 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 : 존 미어샤이머 (John J. Mearsheimer)
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 05. 2018
- 존 미어샤이머 시카고대 교수 특별강연
[China Lecture Series] 32강 : 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래
“한국은 지정학적으로 세계에서 가장 불리한 위치에 있다”
“추악하고 위험한 것이 국제정치의 본질이다”
공격적 현실주의(offensive realism)를 주창한 현실주의 국제정치학의 대가 존 미어샤이어 John J. Mearsheimer.
3월 20일, 한국고등교육재단 컨퍼런스홀에서 열린 존 미어샤이머 교수 특별강연에는 교수, 대학생, 고등학생, 일반인, 주한 외교사절 등 600여명이 넘는 관중이 모였다.
존 미어샤이머 교수는 강대국 정치에 관한 자신의 이론을 소개하는 것으로 강연을 시작했다. 이른바 ‘5개의 가정’과 그에 따른 ‘3가지의 행동’으로, 기본적으로 무정부상태(anarchy)인 국제사회에서 각 국가들은 상대방의 의도를 알지 못하기 때문에 존을 위해 어떻게든 국방력을 늘려 자신의 힘을 극대화하고자 한다. 또 모든 강대국의 궁극적인 목표는 속한 지역의 헤게모니(regional hegemony)를 장악하는 것으로, 영국으로부터 독립한 후 미국이 걸어온 역사가 바로 이를 증명한다고 설명했다. 세계 전체를 장악하는 것은 현실적으로 불가능하기 때문에 지역의 패권국으로서 지위를 구축하면서 다른 지역에서 경쟁자가 출현하는 것을 막는 것이 강대국의 속성인데, 미국이 제1, 2차 세계대전에 참전한 이유도 유럽과 아시아에서 독일, 일본이라는 경쟁자가 출현하는 것을 막기 위해서였다고 말했다.
이와 같은 이론을 바탕으로 미어샤이머 교수는 만약 중국이 지금과 같은 발전을 계속한다면 머지 않아 아시아 지역에서 패권국(hegemon)으로 떠오를 것이고, 자연히 미국과의 충돌을 피할 수 없을 것이라 예견했다. 미국이 그랬듯, 중국도 아시아에서 자신의 영향력을 확고히 하기 위해 수단방법을 가리지 않을 것이라고 보기 때문이다. 그렇게 되면 미국은 중국의 주변국들과 중국을 견제하기 위한 연합체(balancing coalition)를 형성할 것이고, 한국도 그에 동참하면서 아시아 지역의 안보 긴장도는 높아질 것이라고 미어샤이머 교수는 설명했다.
한반도 문제에 관해서는 북한이 핵무기를 포기하기를 기대하기는 어렵고, 근시일 내에 통일이 이루어지긴 어려울 것이라고 예견했다. 동시에 한국이 처음에는 미국과 함께 중국을 견제하려 하겠지만, 중국의 영향력이 커지면 커질수록 어쩔 수 없이 중국 측으로 가면서(bandwagon) 실질적인 주체성을 잃어버린 반주권국가(semi-sovereign state)로 전락할 위험도 있다고 경고했다.
2018년 3월 20일(화) 16:00-18:00
한국고등교육재단 컨퍼런스홀
________________________________________________________________________________________
John J. Mearsheimer 시카고대 정치학과 교수
미 시카고대 정치학과 교수. 웨스트포인트 육군사관학교 졸업(1970) 후 공군 장교로 5년간 복무했고, 코넬대 정치학과에서 박사학위를 받았다(1981). 현재 가장 저명한 국제정치이론가 중 한 명으로 안보와 국제정치에 관한 폭넓은 저작이 있으며, 통설과는 달리 핵확산이 가지는 안정적인 측면을 강조하였다. 미어샤이머 교수는 국제적 무정부 상태의 위험성과 그 상황에서 생존을 위해 노력하는 국가의 행동을 분석하는 공격적 현실주의(offensive realism)를 창시하였으며, 현재 그의 이론은 국제정치이론의 핵심 패러다임으로 자리잡고 있다. 저서로는 『재래식 억제』(1983), 『리델 하트와 역사의 무게』(1988), 『강대국 정치의 비극』(2001, 2014), 『이스라엘 로비와 미국의 외교정책』(공저;2007), 『왜 리더는 거짓말을 하는가? 지도자의 거짓말에 관한 불편한 진실』(2011) 등이 있다.
![[China Lecture Series] 32강 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 (대담)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HpoRln7erO4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[China Lecture Series] 32강 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 (대담)](/img/tr.png)
![[China Lecture Series] 34강 미·중 전쟁은 불가피한가? : 그레이엄 앨리슨 (Graham Allison)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KvyrK2ZB2f0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[China Lecture Series] 10강 인류학자가 본 또 하나의 중국 : 김광억 서울대 명예교수](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g_z3z8RpHFE/mqdefault.jpg)
This man is remarkable. Right or wrong he has a logical process.
Finally, I found a lecture in English from a Korean Institution... Thx~
宋晦石 institution* - lowercase i
finally i found an asian wife with long silk hair
@@elieh1249disgusting
Wow, great stuffs. Vert fresh insight into the future in the Korean Peninsula. I respect the speaker. Cheers
Same scenario what we have in our days in Europe
Mr. Mearsheimer is brilliant as usual. Thank you!
An excellent lecture.
Thank you!
요즘 상황하고 딱 맞아 떨어지네요.
I think his assumptions are based on cultural differences have no impact on the behavior and decision making of the countries. Therefore, he believes China will behave exactly the same way when it becomes more powerful. He is in essentially prophesying through the western lens, which is biased and uncertain.
His assumption is correct
@@orangutanfan3179 says who ?? Says the westerner who had always seek to dominate "lesser beings" and now fear that he too may suffer this fate
@@hyong-qc3ss Chinese history is full of them throwing their weight around when they thought it was in their interest to do so. China likes to promote this myth that they are uniquely peaceful, when the reality is they have people in concentration camps right now. Ask Kazakhs, Tibetans, Uyghurs, or Mongolians how pacifistic they think China is. Are those western nations too?
His view looks solid at first glance, but then you find his taking no interest in really understanding the Chinese history, culture or way of thinking. He just put China as another America but in an Asian suit. Thus his conclusion is a good representation of the western way of thinking, but rather ridiculous through Asian lens.
@@orangutanfan3179 correct me if Im wrong but China has no history of colonialism, unlike the West.
I wish he would give his point of view about China and Russia relationship after ukraine war
I wish he would give his point of view about China and Russia relationship after ukraine war
As a Han Chinese, We remember that the relationship between Korea and China in history. China sent troops to help Korea fight off the Japanese invasions.
And we also remember, After the perish of the Ming Dynasty, Korea planed to revenge for the Hans China for hundred of years.
For that, we will be forever grateful.
I hope that the friendship between China and Korea will last forever. Whether it's North or South Korea.
I totally agree with you, as a South Korean. Confucianism and East Asia are the best! I hope enduring relationship between Korea and China.
Yeah. If there were no Chinese culture and civilisation, there would be no Korean culture as well. The ties between two nations are strong. I wish my best luck to China for their continuing development. China will be getting more and more advanced in time.
@@user-ds2mc1ps5n What the hell do you mean by Korean culture not existing if there were no Chinese culture. Setting aside the fact that current day China keeps on claiming Korean culture as it's own, Koreans would develop their own culture if Chinese culture wasn't present. What a baseless statement.
@@jtw10192 Why do Korean nationalists keep saying Confucius was actually Korean?
@@skazka3789 it's a made up meme. noone believes that in korea in real life.
i think China want more of economic dominance rather than military and political dominance in Asia. (something like tributary system during dynasty rule in China)
doubt it. China wants to dominate the world.
@crisques The tributary system was greatly exaggerated by Chinese scholar and historians, much of the "emissaries" that went to pay tribute to the court were just foreign merchants pretending to be official emissaries to take advantage of the generosity of naivete of the Chinese court.
I agree, China has no history of invasion.
There is a huge assumption Mearsheimer did not point out in this speech. When he argued that South Korea would be a semi-sovereign state because of Chinese hegemony, the assumption is that the Chinese think and act in the same way Americans have done which is political meddling. The Chinese and the Americans have very different foreign policy approaches as time will tell.
Additionally, I would argue that South Korea is a semi sovereign state already and so is Japan where the foreign policy of both nations are heavily influenced by the Americans. And, may I add that you have FOREIGN military bases inside your country! What nation can assert full sovereignty while having somebody else's military bases within its borders? South Korea trying to build a military base inside continental US, see how US would react to that. No sovereign state would voluntarily allow military bases by a foreign power inside its borders. Germany too.
Full disclosure, I am an American, and a US Army veteran who spent a year in South Korea with 2nd Infantry Division. I love the people, the food, the culture there. I miss it. I hope one day I can go back there to visit.
This helps me understand a lot of corporate and governmental institutional behavior in the US. As a middle-class US citizen, I wish that I knew about it in 2018 - when these South Koreans were brought into the fold.
뉴스보다 우연히 이분 이름 듣고 동영상 찾아보게 되었는데, 정말 몰입되고 유익한 강의네요.. 국제정치 어렵고 복잡하게 생각했는데 몇가지 원칙으로 설명하는 부분을 듣고 나니 이해하기 쉽고 흥미롭습니다..
I am really wonder whether the state is the reasonable actor or not. Nowadays when i see japan and The USA. I don't know the state is reasonable actor.
What about states are reasonable but lack of information. As John said knowing or understanding intentions of others is impossible. The reason Korean people disliking China or Japan in a way might considered unreasonable, is they are behaving with their prejudice against their neighbouring countries.
What kind of blender?😀 Vitamix? Professor Mearsheimer is the greatest lecturer!.
From China's point of view, it accepts or even welcomes a unified&prosperous Korea, but that Korea must not have US troops stationed all across the peninsula. Unfortunately, US's biggest geopolitical interests lies in its military presence in Korea, so that it can keep an eye on China&Russia. Therefore unification is not possible in the foreseeable future.
that korea which has no US footprints will certainly be within chinese sphere of influence.
In Korea's point of view, Korea coming under the umbrella of CCP would without a doubt mean a significant influence in how Korea paves onwards in not just in geopolitics, social politics, but also economic trades as well. Which would be that China may attempt to incorporate Korea as it's own within a couple hundred years such as Tibet, Manchu, and considering the size of China's first unified state Qin, China has continued to lengthen it's national borders IN ORDER TO MAKE BUFFER AREAS BY INCORPORATING MORE LAND into their boarders instead of heaving buffer STATES like many other nations (such as Ukraine with Russia & NATO). As a Korean I DO NOT want to end up like Tibetans or Uyghurs who goes missing if they don't align with the values of CCP. Sure China has no intentions on taking over Korea now, but China's track record shows that such time will come if you stay under the Chinese influence for too long. I mean China already attempted to do this when Goguryeo fell and the Tang instated multiple bases in the fallen state although they were eventually kicked out by Silla.
@@jtw10192 well from a Korean point of view. Do you want your master to be from Europe, or from Asia lol
@@ruoyuli4091 What do you mean, Korea is a country and its owner, just like your China is a country. Relations with the United States are just diplomacy. All the good Chinese die in Tiananmen Square
We learn from history...that how he arrived at his brilliant conclusion...so true..from the western history point of view..
I will argue...2 points...1) There may no longer be winning side to 2 adversaries with nuclear weapons...scientists studying the effect of nuclear war between Pakistan and India..both with less then 300 nuclear device..projected..catastrophic consequences for the whole world...as Albert Estein said..." I don't know what weapon will be use in ww3..but I know..ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones ".
2nd point...The chinese have a longer history...of war and conflicts....within their long history and the lessons they learn may be different from those of the west ! That plus the inter dependence of modern economy...may explain why...as a former greece minister stated.."They are non interventionist in a way..the west cannot understand !....
Dudes, this lecture is mainly about what the Koreans have to do. And at least, as a Korean, I want to say his claim is sufficiently convincing for our faced matter.
I do not think his offensive realism works in East Asia. China is definitely not a regional hegemon existed in Europe or existing at the moment.
@@user-ds2mc1ps5n The whole point is to not allow china to become a regional hegemon
@@FOLIPE China is not going to sacrifice South Korea or Japan in a proxy war to retain its hegemony, America wouldnt think twice. Look at Ukraine. The West provokes Russia and sends Ukraine their old, outdated military equipment and will use the millions in aid to cut a cheque to its military industrial complex. America has no friends, just client states.
결국 미국과 중국의 충돌은 피할 수 없다는 건
충분히 이해했지만
그 충돌이 어떤 식으로 발생할지 매우 궁금하네요.
Easy question, as a non decision maker, would you rather be dominated by the US or China?
대한민국은 인구절벽을 극복하고,,,,살길이다,,,나라가 위험하다고 호소하고 언론 ,책,학교등,,,,홍보를 하고
단결을 해야살길....미래를 생각
The Security Dilemma 30:18
It is a tragic that Korea is still not unified, but China's national interest should not be compromised. I, as a Chinese, does not want to see US army stations near our border especially almost all elites in US views China as a strategic competitor in the current era.
Too bad, Korean reunification will happen
@@mosesyi5523 Be careful with what you wish for. You might well end up on the receiving end of the unification, if it ever happens. South Korea is doomed by its geographic location. It's boxed in on a peninsula by 2 military super powers while being semi colonized by a 3rd that is hostile toward the other 2. The only connection to its master is through ports which can be easily destroyed if full scale war breaks out. Peace is the best and only option for the existence of SK to continue. Fortunately, the SK government in the recent decades understands this very well, and has been playing the game wisely.
@@dipderpderp6988 Be careful what I wish for? Underestimating SK military poweress I see. I highly doubt Russia wants a war in its backyard (near their major port city and open to Korean investments in Far East), the only potential enemy is China. Japan isn't a worry for us since we are militarily capable to beat them.
@@crusaderforchrist8430 LOL, Japanese navy can mop floor with South Korea. And your cousins from north has nukes. Occupying SK would be costly and unnecessary for Russia or China, but bombing it into stone age is rather easy if they ever consider it to be necessary.
미국은,,,,아시아 정책을 변화를 하고,3차대전 비극은 사전에 차단...
미국은 현명한 지도자 필요하다,,,강력하게
As a Chinese, the fact that China continue to develop means higher percentage of population will access modern sew system and toilets, access to modern dental care and many things of higher quality life. No ill feeling to other countries.
1. Lions are just cats, but bigger. We like cats, but we fear lions.
2. CCP enforces policies that aren't in line with humanitarian values that we 'western' bloc take for granted.
> Note that CCP doesn't for example say we won't trade with you until US gets rid of the rights to bare arms (considered barbaric to us here in China - I'm not Chinese btw) and I can imagine how this conversation would go. This is highly hypocritical.
3. China's no. 1 interest is China. US no. 1 interest is US. 'Westerners' cannot imagine a world where the most dominant force of the world doesn't use its accumulated power for imperialism and colonialism because that's the lens they see the world through, and therefore built. Just look at 19th - 20th century. And it's no coincidence Mearsheimer (as talented as he is) draws conclusions from this time period.
> In my opinion, China was a regional hegemon that had the ability to conquer most of Eurasia if it so wished (as shown by Yuan dynasty and the Mongols) but chose not to. Note - they called other countries 'barbaric' and called themselves the middle country. Only the emperor of China was allowed to wear yellow as opposed to red for other kings in the nearby region, and accept Chinese superiority.
> The variable is century of humiliation. China may choose to become aggressive in face of the aggression it had faced (imperial ambitions most notably by the Europeans and Japanese) so it may choose aggression. However, I hope this is completely untrue
> CCP does not resemble anything like Hitler or Japan. However, as Mearsheimer says, we can never be sure about a state's intention.
Feelings have little to do with geopolitics. Power follows its own logic, and that logic often leads to conflict
@@raccoonious4038 bro you know, as a Chinese me myself, I felt that United States, the democracy crusader is the real hinderance for Asians to promote democracy. America’s presence in the northeast Asia is way too strong and we all know that it will not tolerate any competitor to grow freely. So the only way for china to ascend on the global order is to make itself somewhat impenetrable, propaganda/economy/military etc. And we all know that, the more China behaves in this way, the more threatening it looks to others.
I don't agree that Singapore will be on the side of the US - I think they would try to work with both sides
I wonder if Mrs. "the Hun" knew what she was getting into? Conversely, most women do not face that exact situation and find that they are not married to Attila the Hun.
Who was, in fact, so rare that we still speak of him.
1) China learns from the century of humiliation that if you are weak, you will be bullied. But it is does not means that if you are strong, you should bully other.
2) Out of three or four thousand years of Chinese history, may be less than one hundred years China were expansionary, if you excluded the time of Mongolia empire. For the rest of time China was mainly on defense. The Great Wall can prove it.
3) China wants to win but it wants to win by no war, like Sun Tzu said. In history there were a few times China attacked Korea for the reason of upholding supremacy. China paid a high price and learn that war or military force is never a good idea.
It sounds like you agree with the speaker more than you realize. Let me rewrite what you wrote.
1. China wants to be able to have hegemonic power in it's region of the world.
2. In the past, as a hegemonic power, China upheld the status quo (with it on top) and was against changes in said status quo.
3. China did military interventions only to keep military supremacy and not allow peer powers to rise in it's region (realist), not to spread it's ideologies (liberal hegemony).
38m security competition >> trade consideration
The primary difference between China and the US is not one over ideology, be it liberalism or nationalism. It’s the undertaking made by the US to protect Taiwan as revenge to China’s entry to the Koran War, at a time when Taiwan had no interest in US-style liberalism at all and when the belief was prevalent that China would never possibly be able to pose as a threat to the US militarily on the subject of Taiwan. Today, the US is in a position that does not allow it to back down but requires it to remain a stumbling block to China’s unification.
Brits accepted by 1861 that use was regional hegemony that could not be challenged by UK - Confederacy
At least one of the five assumptions is self-contradictory. If small countries can rationally know that they are between powers and maintain a certain balance, wars may not happen.
I don’t know. Poland was a small country in between Germany and the USSR. They definitely were in no position to balance anything, even though they knew their position. Instead, the Germans and Soviets divided it up without Poland’s say then proceeded to engage in the greatest military conflict of all time.
@@jbparrish17 So, what should be done? Let all power disappear? The Soviet Union has disintegrated, so let's disintegrate the United States and China? Or also Germany and France?
@@m3r1in I don’t know what you mean by the question. I think profesor Mearsheimer made it clear that the great powers (U.S., China, and Russia) are the ones to either maintain or disrupt the balance of power, not smaller, less-powerful states caught between. The U.S. is trying to gather its allies in East Asia to form a balancing coalition against China, but the chief power and driver of this coalition is the U.S., not Japan, India, nor Australia for the simple fact that it is significantly the most powerful.
한반도의 주변에 강대국,,,,외교는 생명
강해야 생존,,,,
한.미,일 동맹이 필요하다,,,
28:50
Note comment on Russia. He has been wrong on Russia for a while.
코로나전이군요 ᆢ
24:02 Great talk, but that is completely incorrect. USA did not "single-handedly" defeat" Japan. You may be able to dismiss USSR as arriving at the last moment and Australia and UK as relatively minor players in comparison in the Pacific to the US. I don't hold these views, but I can understand if you do hold these views and say US did defeat single-handedly defeated Japan if that was all the countries involved.
But that was NOT all the countries involved. Chinese states had been fighting the Second Sino-Japanese War since 1937 and would inflict about 500,000 military deaths on the Japanese out of 2 million total. British Empire forces primarily consisting of Raj inhabitants inflicted 200,000 military deaths on Japan in Burma.
USA did strike the killing blow to Japan by decapitating their prized navy almost single-handedly with help from a few Australian ships and their amphibious assaults were quite successful in rolling back the Japanese as well as US air campaigns over Japan. I would have no qualms with saying "US was the decisive force in the defeat of Japan" but "single-handedly" is incorrect.
euro centric view, aka white supremacy rear its head
17:24
Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in 1962, not 1963... Mearsheimer made a mistake with the historical date.
Correct. What matters though is the point he made, in his published work these facts will be checked and accurate.
전술핵 배치로,,,중공.북한,러시아,이란등 ,,,핵으로 견제 아시아의 평화
비극은 사전에 차단
He is a realist. He only describes what it is. Don't think of him in binary case scenario.
중국이 한국의 주체성을 위협한다면, 한국은 수단과 방법을 안가릴 것입니다. 5000년동안 그렇게 살아왔고, 북한이 핵무기를 개발한것은 중국이 북한의 주권을 위협할 수 있다는 불안 때문입니다. 중국은 5000년간 경험을 토대로, 한반도의 주권을 위협하는 것은 불가능하다는 것을 그들 스스로 잘 알고 있습니다.
Throughout the past 1000 years of history (since the Tang Dynasty), China, Korea and Japan maintained a relative peace and stability in Northeast Asia. China was the dominant power, Korea was the nominal vassal of China, which paid homage to China, but was an independent country in its internal policy. Japan meanwhile maintained a relative distant yet cordial relationship with both Korea and China.
This system began to unravel in the 15th century briefly, with the rise of Japan under Toyotomo Hideyoshi and his ambition to challenge China (Ming Dynasty) as the regional hegemony. Japan invaded Korea and almost conquered Korea and made it its vassal. Ming China helped Korea and defeated Japan and maintained the balance of power.
During the 19th century, Japan finally rose up after its Meji Restoration and westernize modernization. It was able to defeat the declining and corrupt China (Ch'ing Dynasty) in 1895 and officially wrestle Korea away from China's sphere of influence and became Japan's vassal, and later annexed Korea outright in 1910. Japan also defeated the other major power in Northeast Asia, Russian Empire in 1905. And Japan continued to expand into Northeast China (Manchuria) in 1931 and eventually expanded into China proper in 1937. The goal was to completely replace China as the hegemony of East Asia.
However, after the Second World War, the old balance of East Asia is no more. China was much destroyed by the war and the civil war. The Chinese communists kept China backwards for 40 years after the war. East Asia is no longer just about China, Korea and Japan, but the Soviet Union and United States are the major players.
So for Korea, a small nation smacked between major powers, the only way is to keep peace and maintain good and cordial relationship with all of them.
1. Korea was never a vassal to China. Yes, it paid tribute, but that was more for the cultural and economic ties with China, and China in return did more for Korea (economically speaking)
> UK as part of EU, paid into the EU budget. It does not mean UK is vassal state of the EU. However, these contributions were then used to strengthen cultural and economic ties with European nations. Some even argue that UK's membership is actually more valuable than the small amount of "tribute" they pay in form of contributions
2. Hideyoshi is end of 16th century, not 15th. His death was 1598.
3. Korea is top 10 in the world in terms of economic might. It's not a superpower by any means, and geographically placed between Japan and China, who are in superpower class (Japan currently doesn't have the army to be classified as superpower, but I argue has the economic and population might backing to be in that class), but that doesn't mean Korea is a "small nation smacked between major powers" either.
For context, modern day Korea fared better than anticipated in Trade Row (not war to denote the big one between China and US) against Japan, Korea has technologies that affect the world in global scale. The exact date is not clear, but Korea (united) was stronger than Japan, until Japan united under Hideyoshi and proven otherwise in the 16th century. But even thereafter, they weren't noticeably stronger until beginning of 20th century.
Historically speaking, in 15th century, Korea had a King (Sejong) that dwarfed surrounding nations, if not globally in science, and admiral Yi Sun-Shin managed to win an impressive 23 victories against the Japanese (without losses) even when Japan was more powerful under Hideyoshi.
The point here is Korea isn't just a small worthless country that is ready to be smacked around - that is just historically inaccurate. First half of 20th century was a historical anomaly in Korea's (acclaimed) 5000 years of history.
Also note that unlike its unfriendly neighbour, Korea never showed any ambition for conquest, prioritising stability and security above all else. Note - this is likely to do with Korea's geographical location, "blocked" by China, and Japan to the East (which Korea considered barbaric and not worth conquering due to lack of fertile land) It wasn't until very recently that Japan became even relevant in world stage and politics.
However, I do agree that Korea should take good note of balance of power. The peninsula has high strategic value for some of the biggest global powers. THAAD missile issue, for example, had US, China, Japan, S.Korea (and North Korea) involved which involved 1,2,3,10th biggest economies actively involved. This indirectly involves Taiwan, and Russia too.
@@raccoonious4038 So you'd better protect women in your country form being raped by american soldier.
According to Sejong Silok, Japan paid tributes to Korea annually, so that means Japan is vassal of Korea? Your history is distorted by Sinocentricism. As for Japan, its a weak country compare to South Korea. No official standard military, just a defense force that relies heavily on US protection.
국뽕좀 작작빨아
중국한테 조공바쳤던건 팩트지
그리고 뭔 일본이 우리보다 약하냐;
First I thought professor John Mearsheimer could be a peacemaker as I watched his video concerning Ukraine. And I honored him a lot. However, I am disappointed to hear from him (2:21 minutes: He wishes China's development would become flat lines and could be decreased)😒
Well, you can't blame him. He is an American. Off course he would be rooting for his country at the end of the day. Just like all of us will be rooting for our country of origin.
He's a realist but he wants his "side" (western liberal democracy/USA) to succeed. Everyone wants their team to win. At the same time, he doesn't want the US to bully and badger the rest of the world.
@@scottmoon4721 well too bad his team is going to lose and no amount of cope can reverse this fact
He's theory is not to make peace. He doubts China will be peaceful so he think it's the right thing to put China down before China grows to powerful and he think the USA should work with Rissia to contain China.
Got to suspend the lecture to watch trump in Alaska, much more exciting!
His words were too powerful for the alliances of US, but as a person form China, I hope the colossus is a member of my country.😂
China is rising up slower than before as no harm to most worlds and Asia, But USA won't want to see it and try to destroy this trend , this leads no pure peace in neture of this progress.
Sincere conversations to one another nor unto God. By becoming a CHILD in front of God. Is like who gave us the reasons to HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO UTTERED WORDS? SINCERE CONVERSATIONS availeth much indeed. LOVE ONE ANOTHER BELOVED. Keep it going pops! Is like intent based 1st. Love God so we may know why is vital to 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself beloved upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world. Remember LAUGHTERS of our innocents youngs sons and daughters upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world is SOOTHING unto God indeed. Is like who gave the reason of movement beloved? Deep like the sky can't touch the roof of it like thy lives. Used these 2. 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. Is not what we possess but is what we can do without beloved. But be thankful of what we have as 1 FEETS OF YESHUA JESUS CHRIST UPON ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD. FOOTSTOOL. ALL THEIR FEETS WILL BE YESHUA JESUS'S CHRIST FEETS. ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT LIMITS. FOUNDATION NOONE CAN'T UPROOT NOR SHAKEN BUT HERE TO STAY FOR GOOD. WAIT A LITTLE OUR INNOCENTS YOUNGS SONS AND DAUGHTERS UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. ALL DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD. INDEED GOD'S GLORY WILL NOT SHARE TO ANYONE BELOVED. THE MINDS OF OUR INNOCENTS YOUNGS SONS AND DAUGHTERS! UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH INCLUDING...INDEED LANGUAGE GIVEN AND LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD INDEED. HEIRS! WILL RECOGNIZE INDEED! REMEMBER OUR LIVES WAS DESIRED BELOVED. Remember it will be hard to show off to God without our neighbors beloved. Is like why YESHUA Jesus came? Is like if you and me uttered words. Why utterd words beloved?
대한민국은,,,한,미 동맹.....절실하고,,,,북한의 흡수통일하고, 간도땅 수복으로 강대국으로 영원히 한.미 동맹
hahaha,, maika de thuong qua
Remarkable to hear him suggest Russia will join the US vs China. Ukraine may have changed that for the next decade plus.
The USA made a big mistake alienating the Russians over making Ukraine a NATO member.
China with Russia's vast resources means that China will be the worlds Super Power in 20 or 30yrs
estão lendo T no piaui
The content was totally in US logic. Be noted that China will never invade other countries, essentially not the same as US.
"China will never invade other countries" ??????????? 6.25 Korean war....??? Hongkong? Tibet?
Truly, the present world system is Anarchic, not because there is no higher power above states. It is because “higher power” inherent in every person here on earth has not been recognized. Vedas were the first to design a system to remove anarchy from the world with the only assumption that “people mature with age” and that should be respected by everyone. All religions believe in an imaginary, higher power God, while Vedas believed in a real power here on earth of gods and goddesses, who maintained themselves free from normal human failings, implicit in the Five assumptions made by Mearsheimer. They would administer against anarchy in a democratic set up of states. Also, institutions were established - Gurukuls to create them. Ordinary human beings, engaged in production of various kinds felt secured with their property in a peaceful world administered by gods and goddesses.
Zelensky challenges Putin to a game of Russian roulette.
Zelensky: You go first.
Putin : No you go first.
Zelensky: I can't go first
Putin: Why ?
Zelensky left the table and asks Joe Biden to replace him.
Joe Biden sat down and tells Putin: okay, we'll go first.
He pointed his gun at Zelensky and fired : okay Putin you are next.
Putin left the table and called Xi Jinping: We are playing mahjong here and we are short of one player, care to join ?
Xi Jinping to Putin: I have a better idea. Why don't I teach Narendra Modi how to play mahjong ?
1:20 rise of China slide
This guy is pretty damn brilliant, and this is coming from a chinese man. He seems to undersrand the geopolitical and dynamics of the US and china relations. He is damn right about china will absolutely wants to dominate asia and hate the fact that US is in our backyard and snooping around and stuck its nose into our business. As china rises in recent years, more and more so china wants to exihbits that china is no slouch. The centruy national humiliationis deep rooted into chinese people’s mindand soul. I sadi to my friends and family back home that if there is ever a war brewing, it will be china and US. He knows the situations to say the least. Unlike this other idiot peter zeihan. The only thing he might be wrong is about russia joining US coalition against china. It is 2020 and he seems to be wrong on this one. Other than that, i give him 9 out of 10 in this presentation. He is that good, and again this comes from a chinese man living in the US.
It is possible that Russia will form a coalition with US because deep in the Russian's heart, they resented that China stood by the US during the cold war period to help bringing down the soviet union.
@@yingminpang6834 Only if the Americans stop pressing on eastern Europe.
You need to diversify your sources of information. Even NYT, WP, CNN. MSNBC, WSJ (mostly owned by billionairres) which I used to respect, all have their hidden agenda.
Try one such as
czcams.com/video/r_d-jNCeBVk/video.html
i think his point about the us and russia is not that it would happen...but that it would be in the best interest of the us. unfortunately us leaders don't agree
As a Korean, I sincerely wish that China and US can be peaceful with one another. I view China as the "peaceful" regional hegemony before the Great Divergence, and I sincerely hope that that is the model China is returning to. We can be what Canada is to US to China.
We have deep cultural and historical ties that gets forgotten in the contemporary history and geopolitics. Korea never posed any threat to China and unlikely to. Koreans do however, have strong nationalism and strong desire for sovereignty.
Also, if China choose to hurt Korea, I'm sure they will succeed, but not without feeling it
중공의 남진정책을 막고, ,,,아시아도 유렵의 EU가 필요하고, 자유민주주의 단합이,,,,
In the context of it being May 2022:
... there is a strip of land, above North Korea, between China and the sea, that is Russian. It almost looks like the coast line there is in direct line of site with a part of Japan's coast line. Also, sort of in a direct line across the ocean with the US/ Canadian border to the East, with Moscow across land to the west, and with Australia down to the south.
A stupid idea ... how much would Russia want for that land in part along side Japan and directly above North Korea, and bordering it, say up to the highest level of the top border of China and at an angle, guesstimate 45°, to draw a line to the coast?
That strip of land above North Korea along China, if bought, as US permanent soil (not property owned by US yet within Russia, but, sort of not unlike how Alaska became a state of the US?)? ... nearness to Japan, Taiwan, obviously, South Korea ... it seems not unreasonable, as a portion for Russia to actually consider it and possibly accept it ... any more than that though, might be pushing things too much. It seems like psychologically, an area that mirrored Australia in size would be the limit, and certainly more, like, yeah, no way in the world today. ... Would it make things worse, if there were US bases permanently there. Is it a bad strategic idea for the US/the region? I don't know.
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
John Mearsheimer seems lovely and sounds like an adult (not frustrating).
Questions: if a system of governance is a true dictatorship (not authoritarian) then is it not a system where governance is taken over by a person, without being elected? In that circumstance, how come that governance is defined or limited to a person from within that system? Does it make a difference, in that circumstance where that person is from or came from? If by definition it is a dictatorship, theoretically/ ethically/morally, would it be unacceptable for another country to openly choose a person or group of people for that system where governance is taken over by a person, without being elected, in doing that same thing, initially, to govern? Would that be a regime change? Is it not following the rules of that regime, that same regime? After that though, the governance taken over and ... those in governance, in a position to govern ... and govern, (hopefully, more so democratically than not)? It seems like a dictatorship could be taken over by any dictator and things could go from bad to worse, on the other hand, with checks and balance and transparency, a dictatorship could be taken over, and at that point transition into a different form of governance? Would it be a case of taking out what seems like a hell on earth situation, and or, a path leading to hell with best intentions, or neither, or something else altogether?
Yin and Yang? ... ☯️
TCM ... five elements ... sheng and ko? ...
13:10 min ... (Sorry, I'm not sure I'm listening properly.) It sounds like a possible discussion about an imbalance in power, either by a result of control, an excess in relation to either a deficiency, neutrality, or another excess yet that is deficient by contrast, or, by a result of nurturing, a deficiency in relation to either an excess, neutrality, or another deficiency yet that is in excess by contrast?
"John Mearsheimer: Great power politics on Ukraine" (CGTN)
Some perspective, perhaps, or not?
Minimum distance between Britain and Europe: 20 miles (32 km) ... ?
Minimum distance between Taiwan and China: 81 miles (130 km) ... ?
How did Germany go with taking over Britain in WWII?
From a yin/yang perspective (this might not be correct):
How much effort would be needed to 'take Taiwan', how much would it weaken China, and, how much hostility would it bring to China (direct or indirect: destructive), say compared with making a decision that, even though Taiwan is important, China is in a position to not need to take over Taiwan, with China being strong enough to be a nurturing ally, and, the goodwill that would bring to China?
How much effort would it take China (with US support) to, say, "liberate" North Korea, over land, a place that relatively is seen as extremly deficient in maintaing humans-rights when compared to China, and so, in that context, would South Korea prefer, to border North Korea or to border China, and, while some may question motives, how much goodwill would be brought to China, if (with US support) North Korea were liberated and instead of being kept by China, North Korea allowed to heal with South Korea?
How much effort would it take China to find a solution to an expanding desert and possible dehydration, rehabilitating the desert with edible grasses and trees, while providing an opportunity to take pressure off of some of the cities, providing opportunities for improved health, livibility, ... e.t.c. ...
Example:
"Town planners on a 'crusade' against TB could help us to redesign our cities post-COVID - ABC News" www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-25/what-planning-lessons-during-tb-outbreak-teach-us-about-covid19/100348914
Asking for a friend, there wouldn't happen to be someone already taken by someone who is not Mearsheimer, and, who knows a Mearsheimer who is not taken? You know: single, not married, handsome, reasoned, intelligent, funny, lovely, expressive, smiling, doveish disposition, e.t.c.?
What will the neighbours think? ... lol ...
... you're the man? ... not to mess with your mate ... ?
Then again ... just maybe ... ?
"The fundamental things apply
As time goes by"
"On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by"
"It's still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by"
Lyrics, "As Time Goes By", song by Dooley Wilson.
Who knows ... ?
Not up to standard.
진작에 봤으면 방산주 사뒀을텐데. 엄청난 안목
형편없는 안목같은데... 중국이 동아시아를 먹고 한국이 속국이된다니.... 뭐 일본 미국이 가만히있으면 가능하겠다만....
@@user-uu2jv5bc9q 시작전 "중국이 지금 이대로 계속 성장한다면" 라는 가정을 한다고 여러번 강조함. 이런일이 안일어나기를 바란다는 말도 이 영상, 혹 다른 영상에서도 종종함. 목포해상방위대 슨상님 다시 제대로 보세요.
@@kyelee09 중국이 지금 이대로 성장한다라면 이라고 가정을 할 이유가없지. 그렇게될거냐가 중요한거지. 말장난도아니고 아무 의미없는소리임.
@@user-uu2jv5bc9q 그런식이라면, 이 세상 모든 연구 의미가 없음. 경우에 따라 시나리오 써나가는 것도 지혜임
@@kyelee09 근거와 논리가 아니라 가정에 가정을 해서 미래를 예측한다라는건 의미없는거라니까? 뭔 이세상 모든 연구야. 말귀를 못알아먹네 ㅉㅉ
China powerpul asia in ok
This chat was just before Russia invaded on 24th Feb. (My now unforgetable birthday) You regular updates would be welcomed. So its happening and poor Ukrainians are suffering, their Presidents being a Marter and fighting back. I really think Putin will take Ukraine even though weapons are now flowing in from all over. So far he's hit strategic positions and NOT taken an offensive role against the civillians. The UK/US and other Nato countries giving arms to Ukraine is fueling the fire and Putin will wreck the Ukraine. Maybe Putins allies in South America should start talking about setting up Russian bases in Cuba again. This may well get heads turning to own threats and thereby be more keen to talk on creating the buffer zone and Both supporting and rebuilding Ukraine again and stop the shit before some idiot pops the red button. It would be great if you and your russian counterparts with such knowledge and answers could not be could brought in to mediate the situation for the peace of mankind. Both Russia and the USA are Bullies and the only way to deal with Bullies is expel them until they come to their senses. The other NATO coutries are mere puppets in the equation with the exception of China. It would be useless to bring in so called fundies from NATO countries because Bullies wont listern to them and the generals all talk war talk. China may be just the place for a round table mediation and discussion table where everyone is assured of their security. May God Protect all civillians and give the other leaders the wisdom to find peace for the sake of mankind. Please God dont let them destroy your perfectly build Earth.
From the US interest, it is wise to North Korean to keep small nuke missile for against China and Japan. They can keep relative independence . Otherwise, without the US military, Chinese military will dominate Korean peninsula naturally. However, if South Korea wants to go with China, the nuke weapon needs to be removed. Very simple.
I don't think there is any such thing as a small nuclear bomb. I think they just vom in one size
@@deborahdean8867 Nukes come in many sizes, but you're probably right in that you either have nukes or you don't. North Korea is a nuclear-armed state, even though it has relatively few. Another example is the fierce opposition to Iran building its first nuke, because it becomes a nuclear-armed state and will naturally expand its arsenal.
@@bztheman I think the citizenry ought to expect their governments to justify untold destruction without much reservation. They always have, and today the government is no more wise, or merciful, or in possession of any more good sense than they had in ww1 or ww2.
@@deborahdean8867 True, but it would seem from Prof Mearsheimer's realist standpoint that domestic policy and "morality" in an anarchic system are afterthoughts. States will communicate the need for nuclear weapons to their populace in whichever language is popular at the time. Whether it's to "defend democracy" or "defend against western warmongers".
@@bztheman oh of course they will twist the public's mind any way that suits them. I just think its interesting that public opinion matters at all to them.
45:20 trump the wild card ......
USA no.1
In Korea's point of view, Korea coming under the umbrella of CCP would without a doubt mean a significant influence in how Korea paves onwards in not just in geopolitics, social politics, but also economic trades as well. Which would be that China may attempt to incorporate Korea as it's own within a couple hundred years such as Tibet, Manchu, and considering the size of China's first unified state Qin, China has continued to lengthen it's national borders IN ORDER TO MAKE BUFFER AREAS BY INCORPORATING MORE LAND into their boarders instead of heaving buffer STATES like many other nations (such as Ukraine with Russia & NATO). As a Korean I DO NOT want to end up like Tibetans or Uyghurs who goes missing if they don't align with the values of CCP. Sure China has no intentions on taking over Korea now, but China's track record shows that such time will come if you stay under the Chinese influence for too long. I mean China already attempted to do this when Goguryeo fell and the Tang instated multiple bases in the fallen state although they were eventually kicked out by Silla.
Your other option is be a pawn of the US and take the brunt of the damage as they have plans to use SK as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in their quest to start a kinetic conflict with China. Pick one and pick wisely.
The thing that both Xi and Putin agree most on is the fact that building empires through expansion will always end in collapse. Just look at the Ukraine situation. Putin want the Ukrainian government to recognize the Donbas as autonomous not become part of Russia. Sorry to break it to you but bigger stronger nations will always have influences on its smaller neighbors.
@@calvyncraven1141 Korea is not pawn of US, South Korea interests align closely to US as we both do not like China's rise.
@@mosesyi5523 I'm not surprised. But i have a question for you, would you prefer the US to instigate a false flag that will start a war in your country/region that will affect your daily lives drastically OR deal with a growing China whose interest is only building their economy through business (no matter how aggressive it may be and its up to your government to protect your country's interest)
I live in Asia too and i would definitely choose the latter.
@@calvyncraven1141 China's interests conflicts witht Korea's interests; it isnt a peaceful China as you claim. They support North Korea, historical revisionism, territorial claims, etc. Also, why would US make a false flag attack? That goes against their interest to start a major war in the region.
Why Chinese ppl here stress about "long time relations between Korea and China" lol, only Korean Chinese care about that. The thing we remember is that China helped North Korea and thanks to that the Korean peninsula is still divided. China especially the CCP is just a business partner that's it.
That is right, China will bully South Korean for sure
這是視頻是發在 May 14, 2018.
現在是 Dec. 24 2021.
US President is from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
@taehwan legen
英文是國際交流語言
閣下可以用谷哥的線上翻譯 或 有第三者翻譯打在視頻的CC 那閣下就能聽懂了.
最好是自己聽的懂這英文 因為它是國際通用的交流語言.
唉，想念川宝
russia is already lost ... intresting
.
🇺🇸🇨🇳
🇯🇵🇰🇷
This guy is an US foreign policy influencer. Lol.
US: join me Korea and let us bully China
Korea: ok but I am right next to China
China: Korea you are my neighbour for a couple thousand years, now you want to side with US?
its funny that he made the example of USA pivots to East Asia is "defense" and China raising the military budget is "offense", that's typical US style double standard; take an example from his speech that if USA is reaching the backyard of China and doing military movement is "defense" and China buying another gun in-house is "offense" ...
The last sentence is very embarrassing. it shows how biased & UnReady Mearsheimer is to give 45 a chance. It turns out 45 was formidable while Mearsheimer is still peddling his pablums across the world. It is hard to cure an academic so certain about what he says, even when he is so wrong. A little humility, a little caution about what the future brings could go a long way.
lol He is always wrong about China and will be...
老19世纪人了
He says nation-states operate in an environment of anarchy.
The nation-states use capitalism which steals value from workers. Every workplace is the opposite of anarchy- its totalitarian. Then, these capitalists capture the governments of nation-states. To say that nation-states are operating in anarchic conditions doesnt make sense because they are built on aurhoritarian individualist economies. Thats the problem with nation-states. They are built on really fucked up premises. Homogenize culture, language and religion and their economies have inherent seriously problematic contradictions. Not sustainable.
Go back and listen carefully to the way the word “anarchy” is used in this lecture. It has a very specific, context driven meaning. It’s not what you think it means here. You’re answering the wrong question.
He means that between states (not within states) there is anarchy. There is no "world government" so each state only answers to itself, ultimately.
All his assumptions are wrong
This man basically is saying that US must always remain the only power in the world, free to do anything it wants. It must be the ONLY power, because no other power can be trusted. Not EU, not China, not India, not Russia.
He is not even considering a multi-polar world. He is not even thinking of strengthening UN so that the world does not have to be an anarchy. Right now, it's a do called US's rules-based system that the world is expected to follow.
This guy is just incapable of understanding that as countries with large populations prosper, power must be shared and that the only way is to have an international system robust enough not to be manipulated by any nation.
Look at the old colonialists' tricks he was using in his talk - divide and rule based fears among Asian neighbours. In a talk he gave in Australia, he basically asked the Australians whether they were more comfortable with an American or Chinese hegemon!
Unfortunately the UN is not powerful enough to be the world's policeman. The UN would have to have huge military power to undertake that role. I abide by the laws of my country. I am so used to it that it seems natural. But what if there were no police? Some people would not obey the law and I might be at a disadvantage if I did not do the same. Hence the law would disappear. That's the situation in international relations.
@@michaellipkin9430 Sound like you are suggesting the logic of the bully. The bully refuses to have a system that will truly work for all because it's to his advantage that it doesn't work well. On the other hand, the bully will ensure that no others will diminish that advantage that he has, so that he can continue to bully others.
If you truly want a system, as the strongest, you are in the best position to pull everyone (or at least most) together to make the system work. Just google what US has done in Latin America (and other parts of the world) such as the 'Banana Republic'. Jeffrey Sachs even said that US has broken more international laws than any other countries, contrary to what mainstream media wants you to believe.
czcams.com/video/WWBCl8huNMA/video.html
In short, the US system is a narcissistic system.
- I want it my way, and only my way with me on top, and everyone else has to follow my way, or I will punish you by attacking you (via military action, defamation, blacklisting, sabotage, sanctions etc).
- I lie, cheat and steal, but I want to be seen as a saviour.
- I have not double, but multiple standards, eg. I practice ghastly genocide of other races (some of which I have denied, never fully acknowledged or never given compensation to this day), but I am quick to accuse others of human rights abuses.
- I am often times the instigator, but I play the victim.
And the list goes on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg....lol.
In psychology terms, the US system is a narcissistic system. And narcississism is classified as a DISORDER. Little wonder this system is broken and needs a good examination.
@@sashaa4412 Fully agreed. But Western media is spreading that disorder, such that they have created a huge bubble. Even academia, influencers, laypersons are all convinced. Not good for US and the world.
@@Time4Peace @Sasha A - I think neither of you has watched Mearsheimer’s presentation. At what point does he suggest that America is best as global hegemon? He merely states that this is the way the world is, “the strong do what they choose”. He is a ‘realist’, believing that power matters in international relations, rather than doctrine or rhetoric. The idea that the UN could be strengthened is based on what? How strengthened? Backed by what powers?? Naive idea. And narcissism? Evidence for that rather strange piece of psychology please!? How is USA more narcissistic than, say China? Or France??
Chinese culture is very different from US. China is not going to be like US which is a good thing.
This isn’t about culture, but human nature.
@@MADnanOOICU812 Civilization and advanced culture shall overcome animal nature of a human being that is what the mainly ideology of the Confucianism, which a white supremacist never understood.
I do not think that is true. So far China is a quasi-communist country. Not too good for its own citizens. Why would it be good for other people?
Chinese do not know democracy and sincerely speaking I do not believe an autocratic country could be really rich. So far despite significant growth for years GDP per capita is still very low in China.
@@2mek99 US has over 200 military bases outside of US, around the world, fighting wars for its own financial and political interests, not for the people or the peace of the world. Millions of innocents died. This is the fact. Go to read the UN white paper, or Julian Assange. How many military bases do China have outsite of China? So far, only 1. How many war China is fighting? Zero.
Just because US helps world technological advancement, it doesn't make US a good guy. And it doesn't make China a bad guy because China is socialist country. A bad guy is not said. You need to look at facts and numbers.
@@titanxie5579 There are no good guys or bad guys in international politics. Mearshimer makes no attempt to paint the US as the good guy and China as the bad guy. It is all about the distribution of power, which is what the lecturer was talking about. "Human rights," "democracy," is a tool the United States can use to rally its allies against China, no more, no less. If the positions are reversed with China in the place of the US and US in the pace of China, we will find ourselves in the exact same position.
So far he is terribly wrong on Asia.