John Mearsheimer's veiled threat to an Australian Audience that being neutral and independent would translate to being an enemy of the US. And people just chuckle as if he were joking.
The threat is not veiled, indeed. But it has nothing to do with political theory. Hillary Clinton would have supported the 'pivot to Asia' just as Obama.
@@christophmahler I'll grant you that it is a direct threat. I say 'veiled' because this sinister point he makes is buried inside a supposedly academic lecture and presented as possibly comedic but the audience doesn't appear to notice the tongue and cheek.
It's just how international politics works because there is no higher power looking out for our survival other than the state. Therefore you have to be the biggest baddest one on the block. As for aligning with USA or China, Australia has a say in whether or not it can feed China's latent/economic power, which can translate to military power. If it makes China more powerful, USA will see it as a move against itself, and it would be. Even worse is if you're closer to China like Vietnam or South Korea, the geography will make it so that you have to pick a side because your country might become a battlefield.
He can get a little amped, but he is just saying - from the point of view of the Powers That Be in the USA - when push comes to shove in the geopolitical battle vs. China, you are either with us or against us. In this formulation, neutral means against us and that will be our conclusion (or the powers that be since the American public is generally clueless and disengaged on foreign policy). It's analysis not a threat!
Prof John is asking Australian to go fight a war with China for the US. Not for Australia. Is he willing to let his children or love ones join in the war and come back home in body bags? Of course the rich and powerful in US were exempted from being conscripted to fight the infamous Vietnam War? As the saying goes, "talking is cheap..." ...Once the body bags starts to pile up only then can one see the fallacy of his argument. Victory or defeat in a war does not depend on fire power alone. ... If ever Australia were to join in the war with the US, it is to contain China. But for the Chinese in China, they are fighting for their survival. Which is more powerful? Furthermore, Australia is geographically close to China wheres the US is more than 3000 miles away? Does it make sense for Australia to make China, your close neighbour an enemy? When push comes to shove, I agree with Prof Hugh White the best strategy for Australia is to stay neutral....Don't allow US nor China to push you around. Pursue your own security and foreign policies for the interest of Australia.
@@donhansen1175 Do you think Australia will agree to that and be a target herself? Australian will never agree to that. I am sure iAmerica already tried but failed.
@John M ha ha ha You would be surprised....There are alot of crazy people around....even in the midst of American's corridor of powers...Some may already be harbouring the idea that America can easily win a nuclear war with China or even Russia...... The example is clearly in front of you. Your Pres Trump....To be polite, the most unique president in US history or sorry for being rude...the most unhinged, vindictive, callous, egoistical and powerful president in the history of the US who will do anything to get what he wants....This is really scary....
I agree that Australia should find a way to stay neutral However difficult that road may be. I say that because I can see the direction America is moving in and it’s isolationism. So for Australia, if they chose to ally with China then China will run roughshod over them. If they side with America against China, well... America will go home one day and the Chinese run roughshod over them more aggressively. Australia has more than enough distance between them and China whilst also being far enough out of china’s way to maintain neutrality without sacrificing their sovereignty. Picking side would only screw them.
@@deltanitros It is a misconception to say Australia's choice is between Economic Development or Security. It is not. In what way is China a threat to Australia? China's threat to Australia is a manufactured threat to drag Australia to go into a war just to contain China. I am not to saying that, as China becomes more powerful in the future it won't but who can see the future? To me, the only good reason for any sovereign state to go to war is an existential threat. Not to fight another country's war. And OMG, for the wrong reason as well. To sustain and enforce US hegemony? Not only Australians. Americans too should not allow their leaders to do that. I have seen Australia prospered over the last 30 years. Is a great country with great potential. It would be foolish to throw that away after all the sacrifices past Australians and its leaders have done.
I think the basic premise is flawed, that “you are with us or against us”. That is the voice of unipolar, global hegemony. With China, India, Russia, Indonesia rising, it is very likely the world will be multipolar with a UN that represents all and upholds international law. This of course is what the US does not want. It wants to act unilateral and maintain its exceptionalism.
The U.N is neither united nor represents all. Its a tag team of despots and lackeys using a democratic forum to undermine democratic institutions and subvert justice. The reality is that being the top dog you get the most attention, when infact the treachery is committed lower down.
The UN with its security council and their individual veto power? You should also consider that laws are followed by those that can not afford to break them.
September 2021: Mearsheimer's theory continues to play out. Australis just ditched France to partner with USA and the UK to get nuclear submarines. To Australia has chosen sides.
Australia has been strongly along with US for decades and partners for over a century. The UK military is more dotted line. France broke the conditions on a contract, Mercantile Law not Foreign Affairs.
@@mattdrammett9937 France couldn’t deliver a nuclear powered sub. The US and AUS should buy the quite excellent French frigate because we need to expand the number of ships.
For those of you who can't get your head around the Political Realist school of thought in International Relations, the following quote from Mearsheimer (which starts at 46:42) might help: _"The point that I tried to make before is that in virtually every case I know in international history, when a state is forced to choose between prosperity and security, it opts for security because survival has to be its highest goal. This is in a way a tragic situation for Australia. I fully understand that Australia wants to maintain the status quo...but the fact is, that world is going away and as Hugh said you're going to be forced to make a choice. The United States is going to lean on you like you wouldn't believe, and the Chinese are going to lean on you like you wouldn't believe. And it has nothing to do with The United States per se or China per se or Australia per se, it's just the way international politics works. And great powers push hard on minor powers, or on middle-range powers and that's what's happening here."_ Many of the comments here demonstrate why the Liberal Hegemony project of the United States has and always will fail. 1. They can't accept the reality of great-power politics. 2. They ignore this reality and believe they can get around it. 3. They believe if only their worldview were given a chance, we would live in a democratic utopia. 4. They can't tell the difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements. 5. They get very angry at those who point out their worldview as being naïve, that it doesn't square with how the real world actually works. The irony here is that those commenters who see the United States as a global bully, and at the same time think that Mearsheimer is an advocate or champion of this bullying behavior have completely misunderstood what Mearsheimer is talking about. *They can't tell the difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements.*
No they didn't misunderstand what Meirsheimer's advocacy is. I agree that they may have misunderstood the way a realist sees the world and talks about the world, but Meirsheimer is clear, not only in this session, but several others that he is advocating for the US bullying. So two things can be true. He may be speaking as a realist, but he's also saying that based on the fact that he is American, he is advocating for a US victory. You did a great job stating Meirsheimer's realist positions against the liberalists and I applaud you for that. But don't for once believe that Meirsheimer is not advocating this bullying. His anti-liberalists views is because he they are not effective in maintaining US primacy, not because he's against the USA's destructive primacy.
@@nyaakewebo It’s quite telling that people with a simplistic view of the world would get hung up on infantile language like “bullying” when talking about geopolitics. The world is not simple: Si vic pacem, para bellum. Also: What “destructive primacy” ?! I guess you have not noticed the historically unparalleled world peace and therefore world prosperity since the US took over after WWII ?
@@AB-rg6lb I take it that you are from the US or the west. "In peace, prepare for war." That's what you said in Latin. And then you think people are hung up on bullying. You also think that US ushered in prosperity. Prosperity for who? If you are country like Libya, whose prosperity was destroyed by the US and the west, what would you think about your claim of prosperity? What would you say about bullying then? Let's name few of the countries that the US, and its western allies have sowed misery upon: Vietnam, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Iran, take your pick in Africa, take your pick in Latin America, North Korea, Russia, etc. These are just a few. What does preparing for war in the time of peace have to do with destruction of countries that did nothing against the US? The US have either sowed economic misery, or war upon most of the countries in the world. And why? Because they can. That's bullying. To think that people shouldn't be hung up on it, can only be said by someone coming from the bullying nation. Close your eyes for a minute. Now imagine, that you live in a country were kids will not know where their next meal will come from. Or imagine that as your daughter sleeps in her bed innocently, she could be murdered by a JDAM bomb. Now, tell me what you will think about the country that put yours in such a situation. And not because your country attacked them. Rather, just because they can and they want their corporations unrestricted access to your resources. You guys fail to even comprehend the misery your country has sowed upon the world. And you seem surprised that people is tired of your so-called "leadership".
I can guarantee many will choose prosperity, times have changed. China isn't out invading foreign lands. China is winning the economic race like it or not. And prosperity brings security.
Don't use "responsible stakeholder" John, just use "obedient/lapdog stakeholder" you want China to be. Because responsible means responsible to international society not to US.
@@tommyodonovan3883 nothing is wasted but increased beloved! Life given and life kept indeed. Beloved make more Tommy like you! Love you truly without ceasing but with boldness. Keep it going!
“With us or against.” Prepare for regime change, Australia! Lol - Unabashed American exceptionalism on display. Let’s keep in mind the US has not won a war in a very, very long time even with countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.
You didn't listen to a thing Mearsheimer said. You are just vomiting up your own prejudices against the US. It wouldn't matter what he had said, you would still hate him and Americans.
Don't Lie! Of course the US has won a war. The invasion of Grenada back in '83 was super successful. Of course you'll counter that Grenada is tiny and only has a population of 100K but it's still a triumph for the mighty US. An elephant boasting of crushing a gnat is a win. Shameful and a bit embarassing but a win all the same.
Paul Keating is spot on about Australia joining ASEAN to ensure Australia’s security and territorial integrity. ASEAN can stay neutral but not Australia by itself. In fact the truth of the matter is China had already given up on Australia. China had in the past considered Australia as the gateway to the West. But not anymore. That’s why China had hit Australia very hard on Australia’s exports to China, discouraged Chinese students to study in Australia and Chinese tourists visiting Australia. China had deleted Australia.
@@soulsphere9242 Rubbish. The Chinese government clearly thinks Australia has chosen to side with the US. The future world order will be China and Russia vs the US and its allies. China is revaluating Australia as a hostile nation, it is clearly not going to "meet Australia half way".
The problem with the West is that it understands and looks at world history only in terms of the past 2 century and no further. The middle East and the Europeans sees different. That's why they are joining the belt and road.
The second speaker gets it! He is a realist and this is really how “ hegemons” rule. Again not saying its right and wrong- it depends where you are sitting- but I thank him for making me realize how this can play out, as candid as he may be. I agree with his premise that countries that are too strategic cannot play neutral when this( the cold war) heats up! Not gonna happen. ..
There would be no heating up or Cold War. USA has no strong allies in that region. Australia is only 30 million country, has no significant military influence in the region. India will never commit because they have great relationship with Russia and certainly India wont fight China without first establishing a formal military alliance with USA. USA will never commit to a formal alliance- so its all fantasy. USA simply doesnt have any answer to China. its that simple. The US armed forces is overextended everywhere around the world. If they commit in East Asia- there would be problems elsewhere. If Anti Chinese alliance was possible- it would have been there since the 1960s
Hmm..methink Mearsheimer miscalculate or is mistaken on several counts. 1. The US didn’t win the war with Nazi German, the Russians did and paid the price with 25 million lives.2. The US didn’t win any war over the Soviet Union. It was Gorbachev strategic mistake to thought and went the democratic way and in the process, fragmented and destroyed the Soviet Union. 3. Arms sale to Taiwan is a card that US played and US would not go to war for Taiwan. 4. HiTech industry goes to where the $$ are, not wars. It is the Pentagon, the military industrial complex and the political elite in the US that wants to remain top dog and militarily dominant. 5. With a combined domestic and foreign debts of USD22 TRILLION, has US the economic wherewithal? 6. The Quad argument is dead in the waters. Will India challenge China when it is a member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Pakistan is also an SCO member as well as China’s ally but India’s arch enemy. Will India has the means to tackle China when its hands are full? As for Japan, China is a neighbor and nuclear armed with increasingly more powerful ad sophisticated weaponry, will Japan challenge China? As for Australia, the 4th member of the Quad, is Australia prepared to break its rice bowl? 5. Since 1945, US had fought 5 wars: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguably, the US may claim the Gulf war. Is China weaker than the other 4 today? 6. Cuba continues to be its own boss and not a vassal nor colony of US. Mearsheimer is disingenuous on this one. 7. China will continue to grow, it has where else to go. Perhaps Mearsheimer conveniently ignored China’s Belt and Road Initiative or China Africa Fund projects which has been 20 years and running.
@Minzhi Ye of course. when you are trapped in a kleptocratic corrupt dictatorship the answer is not reform but to be an even meaner dictatorship. just look at north korea for example, what a wonderful place!
Hmm... methinks numbering your responses in such a ringing way is a nice rhetorical device. It makes your response seem like a definitive refutation, doesn't it? And yet you have only the most tenuous grasp of Mearshimer's position. Though it is hard to tell: some attention to basic grammar and lucid communication might help.
Why fear the Chinese ecinomic success? If "neo-realism" is to be followed theoretically, the longer history of China and it's relationships with the existing world cultures PROVE China is not interested in ruling the world in a heavy handed manner. Otherwise Western governments and all world cultures would have Chinese immense influences on government, art, music, language, etc. This discussion has a blind spot. Fear of a country having been the victim of white supremacy doing the same atrocities to a white nation built upon white supremacy. The United States and Britain would be in the same boat should a united Africa or a country like Nigeria became a superpower. Getting "real" with oneself about this would enable the panelists to get over another "pretty girl on the block".
Agree with Prof Hugh White that Australia should have an independent mind of its own and not just do what the American ask Australia to do. What right has America has to force other countries to choose "them or us" ? What right has America to prevent another country like China to grow and prosper ? Australia has a right to be independent and sets its own course and it does not have to rely to either America or China to assert itself in Asia.
The US owns majority of Australia largest businesses including our banks. Commonwealth bank ANZ bank. National Australia bank. Suncorp metway bank. Bendigo Bank. bank of Melbourne. Rio Tinto mining corporation. Woolworth and many others. All Owned by majority of US investors. Losing a major trading partner hurts. But imagine losing our largest businesses we won't even have a centrelink to give us benefits.. you can see why Australia has no other choice but to back the USA. We can't trade at all if we have no businesses left to trade with. Australia can't stay neutral as the US isn't allowing us to.they asking us to pick a side. Guns pointed at our heads.
China is asking AUS to continue doing what it already is doing, selling stuff to China, US is asking AUS to commit to a potential (economic or actual) fight with a regional dominant power far from the US but right across the street from AUS. Just saying, 2 very different packages.
That is correct. But being threatened by the nuclear arsenal and the super-carriers of the leading _naval_ power, China would have to offer the equivalent of eternal salvation in order to convince the Australians - with their major settlements exposed at the coastline - to fight at their side. China didn't side with Japan when the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' was offered to them (although then, a _chauvinist_ Japan had clear ambitions to _colonize_ China which can't be claimed of present day China). What do You think, how would You convince Australia - and other US allies - to switch ?
@@christophmahler 'US Allies' is euphemism for US subordinates. Your argument rests on a logic of siding with country X with the most military power and ganging up like a bunch of bullies on a targeted country. The sane alternative is multilateral cooperation, world peace, and supporting the United Nations is a consistent message from China.
@@ExplorerBob "US Allies' is euphemism for US subordinates" I don't care if You name them _vassals_ , _slaves_ or 'bitches' - the only thing that matters is if they will _fight_ alongside the US. "Your argument rests on a logic of siding with country X with the most military power and ganging up like a bunch of bullies on a targeted country." That is correct. That is basically how military alliances are formed, unless You are ISIS and believe that god will do most of the fighting for You and convert the populace to Your side... "supporting the United Nations is a consistent message from China" That is true - but irrelevant because the UN has only so much influence as it is granted by the global superpower, the US. You didn't really think that the UN was headquartered by the US in _New_ _York_ because Americans prefer being overruled by foreign interests instead of a 'Pax Americana' ? "multilateral cooperation, world peace" These are all _ideological_ , _normative_ phrases, constantly propagated by the same liberals that layed waste to Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. We both understand that these formulars are the 'offical language' in which international relations are *framed* , but we also understand that political _action_ is organized along other principles (i.e. when the US _covertly_ supports Islamic extremism in Xinjiang and then complains _publicly_ about 'concentration camps'). That is not to say that cooperation can't be a powerful force to solve problems that overwhelm single nations, but You tell me how _consolidated_ the *'Shanghai* *Cooperation* *Organization'* is - is it ready to challenge US global supremacy or does it still have to bide time in order to be an alternative i.e. for countries like Germany and India ? I understand Your frustration with the US - believe me, some Germans know 'a thing or two' about the _idealistic_ *'League* *of* *Nations'* and Woodrow *Wilson's* promises of *'self-determination'* - but none of that is the fault of _political_ _realism_ as an _analytical_ _tool_ of international affairs.
@StrategicFooyoo "regardless what Australia does with regard to staying friends with china the US won't act." I didn't mean to say that Australia will be nuked if it declares _neutrality_ by leaving NATO and the 'Commonwealth of Nations' (without aquiring a nuclear deterrence), not even if it joins the 'Shanghai Cooperation Organization'. But it will be considered for nuclear strike, the moment the US and China are at _open_ war and Australia is nowhere to be found among the ranks of US naval operations in the Pacific. According to Mearsheimer, the US will likely _demonize_ and sabotage Australia as a 'rogue state', if it actively pursues to breach non-proliferation (while China may merely protest diplomatically). On the other side of the argument, Hugh White appears to assume, the US will be too busy with the 'European theatre' or even with securing it's vast coastline - both of which will be contested, if the SCO can help it by then (e.g. increase in submarine activity) - and that any violations of territorial integrity towards e.g. Japan without US military intervention would be the signal for Australia to go nuclear. But I think, he doesn't understand the _absolute_ _'jealousy'_ of *seapower* to _any_ challenge of *maritime* *communication* which would warrant the deployment of *cyber-attacks* on Australia's nuclear research facilities or even the use of *airstrikes* (an 'act of war') - similar to Israel. In WW II the United States of America went from not having a modern army to speak off, to invading North Africa, Italy and France across the Atlantic _while_ fighting the formidable Japanese navy from the Aleutes to the Philippines in the Pacific within mere *6* years (since George Marshall became Chief of Staff in 1939). All of that without being _directly_ provoked by Nazi Germany (but of course, being _conveniently_ attacked by the Japanese at Hawai, resulting in _formal_ declarations of war).
Mearsheimer to Australia at 25:50: "so you'll sacrifice prosperity for security" Indeed we have. CIA coup against Whitlam eliminated a government committed to the nationalisation of the mineral wealth of Australia, and the US diplomatic coup against Rudd eliminated a government that wanted to tax the mining companies. Both Whitlam and Rudd represented the national interest, and they were cut down by the US which would prefer Australia remained a resource-extracting banana republic that maintains Chinese faith in the US dollar. So yes, we have sacrificed "prosperity" for "security".
Also the US investors own all of Australian largest businesses including mining corporations and Australia banks. If Australia was to choose sides with China. Exactly who's businesses will run these companies if the US pulled out it's interest with Australia. Australia won't have any companies left to even trade with China. So we are looking after our own interest. I don't think a few Chinese owned dairy farm is going to give Australia a GDP mate.
There was an opportunity for Fraser to break protocol by blocking Supply, being aggressive, Fraser saw that opportunity and took it. Whitlam and Nixon didn’t get along, “maybe” Pine Gap was involved. However, in 1975, Ford and Fraser, who did get along, were in power.
sept 2021: his comments about how a nation will "sacrifice prosperity for security" are feeling like what's happening in the US rn.. they are sacrificing our prosperity for their security 😐
Entertaining but ultimately based on flawed logic. He's asking countries to come together to stop China's rise. That means reducing trade and other engagements. China has a big plan to grow trade. What has America got? All you see in the US news is Wall Street (which benefits the top 2%). What's the rest going to do to get by if not on trade? These guys have gone rogue! I tell you what I think... USA is one big Ponzi scheme on the verge of collapse and these guys are paddling hard as hell. If they stop, the boat will sink (Read the recent revelation about GE and Deutsche bank). When you ride the tiger, you can't get off. The world should worry about that!
Paul Matters Why are you saying that to me? All I said was his story telling style is interesting. I never said I agree with his trade or industrial policies.
How can it be in Australia’s interests to side with America that trades only 5% with Australia and lose the Chinese market and in the event of war have its major cities decimated ( Australia has no defence umbrella against missiles with which the war is likely to be fought ). Australia should do what America has done for decades and that is do what is best for itself.
As is made clear now, to be a proxy of american agendas is to suffer complete destruction like ukraine or your economy sabotaged as with Germany made clear with the latest Seymore Hersch revelations.
This guy (John) says it all, sums up the U.S. "We are a ruthless power, and we dont accept peer competition" Your either with us or our enemy. U.S. are basically threatening us.
We don't accept funding a country that uses our system, which they have benefited from greatly, only to leave the system when it no longer benefits them and sets up a regional system. Any countries that would join that regional system would be seen as just as bad, so if we are going to leave our system we might as well make it hurt. China is a collectivist Nation. We hoped opening their markets would get them to become more individualistic and they would end up staying in the liberal order and supporting it. That has failed.
@@meganh9460 what a rubbish answer. The position of U. S. and western domination has been built on the back of colonial exploitation, slavery and thievery over hundreds of years and is still going on. Any benefits that China has received are only because the U. S. A. predominantly was able to access and exploit a cheap labour and manufacturing opportunity. We here in Australia also have many of your huge corporations that have monopolised many areas and destroyed much of our own home grown companies etc. Cant blame China at all. As stated in the video, U. S. policy is such that it will not tolerate a more powerful peer trading partner and is willing to go to war to ensure that that will never happen. The United States has a despicable and totally selfish ideology in relation to the rest of the world. There's a big ugly elephant in the room and guess who that is?
@@peterbluesman I don't really give a shit if you think its a rubbish answer lol. Your opinion doesn't matter on what the answer is. Oh jeeze, are you trying to lay all western problems at the US feet now. Slavery, as if that was a pure Western Idea... even tho there are more slaves in China than there is anywhere else today. Go fight that if you care about it so much, talk about rubbish. And that cheap labor helped pull 300 million people out of poverty, you are welcome for the free access to our markets. Lol. You have lived under the liberal order so long you don't even see, you expect it as your due. Jesus, you are the reason I don't fight it.
@@meganh9460 Liberalism is even slowly decaying across North America and Europe now. Other than the elites, no one still believes in the neoliberal fantasy world of Francis Fukuyama in the west.
For 1800 years China is an economic power house then, when most country in Asia is poor. But China did not invade an inch of their land or grabbed their spice or their trade products. But is different from western countries. Name one country that the west did not invaded the poor countries and robbed their wealth, such as oil, spice, minerals etc.
You might want to study Chinese history. The Chinese happily did invade their neighbors and only stopped when the maximum reach achievable with the administrative means available to them in their time was reached. Maybe don't limit yourself to CCP approved text books when you actually try to do this ...
@@nathan-ck3jeWrong. taiwan $ tibet are internal issues. others you mentioned were border conflicts and never intended to invade for occupation or colonization.
Observations: 1. Mearsheimer for some reason is rather nonchalant and hawkish in tone in this debate and hence comes off as somewhat condescending to his Australian audience here. 2. To pull the Anastasia Lin rabbit out of the hat at the end: what a bombshell...gratuitous and unncessary 3. if you watch Mearsheimer in his May-2020 CISAus discourse with Singapore's Kishore Mahbubani, he's altogether a more considered debater and without any of the bravado of this discourse with Hugh White. Perhaps Mearsheimer was being overzealous here and deliberately tried to shake his Australian audience out of their comfort zone into making a choice.
@@tommyodonovan3883 Maybe you’re referring to the Pommies. Far as I know, Pommies is the way ex colonial subjects and detractors refer to the Brit colonialists, nothing to do with our Aussie mates. If Mearsheimer were in the presence of Hawke or Keating, he would get a verbal hiding he’d be unlikely to ever match or forget. For all it’s worth, the Aussie’s have never stumbled in the Asian military theatres or at least in anywhere near the catastrophic failures that America has had in Korea and Vietnam. it’s high time anachronisms like Mearsheimer tone down his rhetoric. It’s not just that it’s obnoxious, but in 2021, it’s wholly comical because the powershifts are already well underway especially in the Asia Pacific.
Look at the consequence and situation of Ukraine when it decided to side with US. what the outcome will be if Ukraine remains neutral? Will they suffer such a great loss and casualty? wake up, Austrilian.
Lol, looks like everything he said was correct. Everyone is siding with the U.S. against China. Their ponzi scheme economy is collapsing and everyone is starting to see that it's nowhere close to as strong as the Chinese propaganda tries to make it out to be.
Why would not Australia survive without US? US is threatening Australia by saying “if you side with China, you are our enemy, you don’t wanna know how nasty we could be” - how could Australians laugh at that knowing they are being threatened?
Mearsheimer assumes that China wants to be a Western-style hegemon. IT does not. It plans to lead by virtuous example: much cheaper and more enjoyable for everyone.
@John M Bruh, "appalling human rights record", tell me one country that doesn't have one. The US? France? UK? And if you think China is going to be aggressive... you are absolutely wrong... Which civilisation prides itself in building the longest wall in the world? Yeah...
Brother you are talking as if china is this spotless,good-intending,sin-less,faithful raising power...brother you are wrong...as ruthless the US is,China will be 200% lethal than the US...we are all in deep shit
@@paylesslimited4399 You have no proof, the Chinese civilisation invented the compass yet did not conquer land half way around the world, it invented gunpowder yet did not use it to good effect, and actual effective cannons and guns were introduced to China by the Europeans.
@@arminius8838 Thats useless brother..India invented everything...Egypt invented everything too...they havent killed anybody....Your point is dead already...The Chinese will be ruthless as their rulling system is dictated by one person Mr Autocratic Chairman of CCP....atleast western democratic liberal order something is debated on all government arms before it is implemented...Me a human being in Africa,my daily life and my fate can not be determined by one person unilaterally in Beijing...For example,using my freedom of expression,make a humorous cartoon of Xi Jingping mocking his wrong decisions on somethings,and it happens China is ruling the world like US now,CCP will come and kill me here in Africa with no question..for the US even if I say Fuck Trump,they understand the freedom....This illusion that China is innocent,reasonable raising power is very stupid and misguided brother....I can never buy that at all!
I can't make sure whether such kind of people is a fundamentalist christian, an average blindfolded enough, a munitions merchant, a racist, a war zealot or something else, very confused.
His arguments are deeply fallacious, but more than that he talks about international relations like it’s a comic book, and just some fun game he’s here to teach you how to play. Utterly bloodthirsty moral nihilist.
I think John is a social democrat, he doesn’t want nation states to behave the way that they do, he doesn’t support United States troops being stationed outside of the United States, but his model of international relations has nothing to do with morality, it’s a predictive theory, and it’s generally accurate. You’ll never go bankrupt betting on the barbarism of the west
I suspect America would consider Australia's current and historical position to be on the pro US side in any great power struggle. Neutrality is a change of position when viewed through that lens.
Australia was one of the Allies in WWII that saved the world from darkness. They don't want to live under a totalitarian government, that's why they want to remain, as the woman said at the beginning, "under the umbrella" of the United States--so they don't get taken over by China. Tiananmen Square Massacre shows how good and kind the Chinese are.
America owns all of Australian largest businesses mining companies fuel stations and banks. Including shopping centres and many other. China is the largest single trading partner. Not Australia only trading partners. You people overseas are so nieve to know anything about Australia. Australia don't rely on China. Last year Australia GDP was only 1.4 trillion dollar. This year is 2 trillion dollars. If Australia so relying on China wouldn't you think our GDP would be much lower this year. Japan is Australia second largest trading partner. Now they are the first again. Australia has only been trading with China for a decade. We don't need their money to survive when we trade with the world also.
What never seems to be mentioned is that Australians like the US. Australian psychology is like something out of the 1950s US. Look at the media content an Australian sees from birth. The idea that Australians would ever fight with China against the US is ridiculous (and their impact in that regard would be zero).
"We (the US) have a rich history of doing horrible things in South and Central America". Looking at China's history, how likely is it that China will behave the same way if it becomes the regional hegemon?
Well China has dominated that region for thousands of years before the Europeans came and usurped that order in the last 300 years. Ofc everyone knows that China will be unquestionable regional hegemon. Many countries in the region prefer to be ruled by people who are closer to them ethnically and culturally. Japan conquered all those European colonized countries like Indonesia and Malaysia easily because the local population preferred their rule over the Europeans. This debate is really BS imo. As if US can do anything about it. USA literally cannot do shit about it. So this is not a question about IF but rather WHEN China seizes control of the region. US is unable to stop any Chinese progress in the South China sea. Also another thing that goes in China;s favor is the US military airforce and navy, although big- they are overstretched and not concentrated in the region. They are all around the world guarding other places. The Alliance against China in East Asia simply will not happen because US is unwilling to commit 100%. US wants those countries to fight China without US dirtying its hands. East Asians are not stupid like Chechens, Georgians and Ukrainians fighting Russia without Us direct involvement. Countries like Philippines, India, Vietnam want literal alliance with USA, not empty promises and moral support in an eventual war. If they go at war with China- they would want USA to declare war on China too. Otherwise they wont commit to any "pinky swear" alliance. USA, knows they cant go directly at war with China so all of these talks about forming anti- Chinese blocks is just hearsay... Not even Australia wants to commit 100% seeing its doubts and good trade deals with CHina.
@@robotube7361 The US economy is one of the least dependent on international trade in the world, with most of our trade being with Canada and Mexico. Chinese trade isn't that important to us. Personally, I'd rather we embargoed China just to encourage production and employment in the US.
@@ot23234 A war with China would NOT be an "easy win" Because if so the US would been had gone to war with China or at least eliminated Xi and replace him with some puppet like the US loves to do everywhere else. 🤣
@@klownking4835 Unfortunately it seems that some leaders in the US, including resident Biden, are in bed with the chinee. Those who mostly control the rulers in the West prefer for international trade to continue, as it profits them greatly. If we get a President that puts the US first he'll likely take extra steps against China.
Let's put it this way. For China to reach the soil of Australia, China needs to pass over the South China Sea, Malaysia and Indonesia. That's a distance from Eastern China to Hawaii. When China never conquered or tried to conquer Malaysia or Indonesia all across history, why would China wants to occupy Australia, a far away strange continent itself. I just don't get the American professor's point that China is a security threat to Australia. Actually, India could be a potential threat to Australia considering that the only block between the two is the Indian ocean, no other nations inbetween.
India is a democracy. You can negotiate with a democracy. Negotiations with an autocracy can become very difficult. I'm not particularly concerned about India. China could become very scary.
whossname I don't believe in democracy. If China is a democracy with the system of popular votes, the first thing a democratic China would do is to conquer Taiwan with its military power, because most of Chinese do not have the patience with the Island's resistance to unite.
@@whossname4399 China is a democracy also if you look at it's real structure, just different. It seems to me China cares more for its people than my own country (the US) gives a damn for it's citizens.
Mr Mearsheimer's logic is if Australia do nothing to stop China's growth, Australia will be the USA's enemy and it will be dangerous to be the USA's enemy.
@@whossname4399 have u ever connected with any Indians in business or other fields? Do you know what are the final results of those investments from Japan, Korea and the USA? Before 1980, India has higher GDP and was more Hi-tech than China, how come they are much behind now? Luckily, China didnt invest infrastructure in India. There is a common saying in China " Even God and angels and fairies cannot earn any money from India." China can earn money from the poorest African small country but can't earn any from India. See how India "helps" the USA. Haha!
The containment of imperial Germany as Mearsheimer said, America could never have done alone, neither did they contain Hitler alone. But he describes America to a T.
Economic growth or security has to choose either one comes from the second speaker .His speech are based on his assumptions and that's evil . Western dominant because of greed and power savvy is scary to the world .
Similar to how the West has continuously gotten China wrong for decades, the American professor seems to have very poor understanding of China’s capabilities and objectives. His assumption that China will be just like the US as a regional power is completely baseless and shows lack of deep understanding of the Chinese mindset. China is nothing like the US and does not have ambitions of imperializing and militarily policing the region like the US does the entire world. China has never invaded a foreign country since it officially became a modern nation. Nor have they acted militarily or politically aggressive towards Australia. The US is a declining global power who’s losing political influence all around the world, who does not have capable leadership and is too overextended in debt and foreign wars to be able to effectively contain China’s growth in Asia. Bottom line is that the US needs to accept the fact that China is going to be the other big political, economic power globally, and especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The world is big enough to support more than one global superpower and they need to learn how to coexist peacefully with China.
The American Professor Simon Hestie, thinks the Chinese behave like them, arrogant and globally ambitious. Please remember China is only trying to protect itself against American interference. Just imagine a Chinese military ship, circumventing the Californian coast. You will shooting it and call it invasion. God forbids China or any Asian country to becomes a superpower, bullying smaller countries. The Chinese has a military moral, being defensive and not offensive approach to your enemies. China’s aim is to provide a stable society and peace for its people. Such she makes mistakes but is very keen to learn from its mistakes.They know united they stand and divided that fall. The CIA madmen now the NED
There has never been a period in human history where multiple great powers "coexisted peacefully". At the end of the day either the US or China will remain as a global power, it might take decades, but it is inevitable. And if you are anywhere close to where either of those superpowers live you will have to pick a side. The only exception is if you are too small to matter, which Australia is not. The US will seek to contain China and China will seek to throw the US out.
Uighur and Tibet is an example of Chinese invasion. Plus Chinese border disputes with India is still around and they already invade a part of Kashmir. They fight against India in 1960s and have eyes on some Japanese ıslands.
"China is nothing like the US and does not have ambitions of imperializing and militarily policing the region like the US does the entire world. China has never invaded a foreign country since it officially became a modern nation. Nor have they acted militarily or politically aggressive towards Australia." ... Yet. If we let China become the regional hegemon, what will be stopping them from throwing their weight about and dominating their neighbors?
The problem for Mearsheimer is not an aggressive China but a China not enough aggressive. China and its neighbors, even those who do not like China, do not want a in East Asia.
I am Chinese Australian and fiercely loyal to Australiaa because Australia has given my family a woderful home after leaving Malaysia; and having said that I want it be known that my opinion seeks to frame an objective and as far as possible a detached point of view free of any bias to advance my home interests. If it is the objective of Australians to choose what is best for Australia then we should consider which competing country has the most advantage that will benefit selfishly the profit for Australia. 1st point we have to bear in mind is the increasing bond of friendship and partnership between Russia and China, eg in 2017 the trade between China and Russia did not pass the $1 billion mark, but last year (2018)the volume of trade came in at $108 billion and I can see in 2020 when Russia delivers Gas under the just completed "power of Siberia" pipeline to pass at least $200 plus billion. 2nd Point last week Russia and China has just completed the bridge connecting road and rail traffice between China's Dalian and Russia's Siberia. 3rd point, to win the China soybean market Putin has agreed to give China's soybean 2.5 million acres of land for growing soybean. 4th point China "if you slap China on the left cheek, China will slap you back on the right cheek. What si the point that I want to make from these 4 points? If Australia chooses the USA, then China will choose Russia to source China's need for raw material and Russia is just too ready and all set to replace Australia as China's supplier ! There is yet the more important and contentious development, the reality of China's Belt & Road initiative, and after 5 years of development China has 124 countries join the venture and $1.4trillion contracts in hand. The success of this project is already assured, therefore the "head-room" for China expansion and further growth in "limitless", whereas the economy of the USA has "tanked" and will likely crash towards a runaway hyper-inflation. This is not speculation, the facts already exist on the ground.
Yes totally with you that China can easily choose other suppliers. But most Australians want to demonise China and side with America regardless. They won't understand the implications until export trade with China is completely lost.
@@halfmoon106 .....Yeah, good point. Now ask yourself in all those wars with the declining US empire, how many did they WIN. What happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan? So you're backing fucking LOSERS!! Good luck for the future pal!
Despite Pr Mearsheimer's compelling enthusiasm about the US being able to successfully intervene in South East Asia by creating an Alliance, I tend to agree with Pr White that this is doomed to failure because such an alliance will be based on extremely fragile coalition of countries with 1) different political systems 2) different culture 3) different ethnicities 4) different religions 5) different military objectives 6) vast geographical separation. Previous US attempts to create such Asian coalition have failed. Obama "Asia Pivot" is such an example. Philippe's Duterte swings like a pendulum from US to China and back. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in Pr Mearsheime'rs view that "States consider their national interest first and foremost" when making decision when we compare his position on the US foreign policy towards Israel where he asserts that the US policies towards Israel are deeply influenced by the so called Israel lobby and such decisions are contrary to US national interests.
100% agree. White made an excellent point when he said that it doesnt matter what US says, but more importantly what they do. USA ofc is supportive and has the best words and tells all these countries everything what they want to hear. But, in reality, US does not show any signs of true dedication when it comes to forming a trusting alliance. The strategy here is clear to every party. USA wants to spur all these countries against China so they can all fight China will US sits back and watch both its potential rivals China and India in a deathmatch. They did the same with the USSR and Nazi Germany and the British Empire. They stood aside, watched the British Empire getting wrecked, the USSR invaded and decided to react only when they were attacked directly. Mind you: US didnt declare war on Hitler first. It was Hitler who did it. Also US waited until 1944 to send troops in Europe. They did the same in WW1. They stood aside watched all their rivals fight eachother while not committing for 2 years, just sending provisions to keep the conflict ongoing. India knows these lessons too well and this is why India will not join US ever and will continue to buy weapons from Russia and continue to have trade deals with China. The Japanese and Koreans literally have no teeth nor any capabilities. All Eastern Asia has deep trading ties with China and they certainly wouldnt want this prosperity to be jeopardized because US doesnt like the prosperity of China. I mean even an Anglo Saxon nation that should be a natural unquestionable ally to USA has doubts, yet alone Asian countries that are more similar to China culturally and ethnically. The thing is US desperately tries to cause a war on China's doorstep, just like it is trying to do the same with Russia, but nobody is taking the bait without certain guarantees that US will commit 100%. That is the problem. US DOES NOT WANT TO COMMIT. They want others to die for their interests. Im glad nobody is buying into it. Also another big difference between China and USA is China is doing everything in its power to act trustworthy as much as their interests allow them when it comes to establishing partnerships with other countries while USA has proven to be very untrustworthy partner. its far from saying that China is very trustworthy itself, but at least they dont make empty promises. They dont do much but one can be 100% sure if they say they will commit- they will. This is how China has been able to penetrate so deeply into the Western world with their investments. They are reliable. Its no secret. They do deliver. Nobody ever complained that the Chinese are bad businessmen. Americans on the other hand, well we all know the WMD fiasco in Iraq. I just wanted to add to what you already said these several other reasons why nobody will ever commit to an anti - Chinese East Asian alliance. Its a pipe dream. I think everyone knows this very well. Americans, however will do their best Im sure to convince others but I all educated guesses point out they are gonna lose this one. China is something the world have never seen in the last 200 years. If you tell someone that is from the year 1700 about this situation- they will laugh at you about anyone having any chances with the Chinese.
INCREDIBLE RIGHT AT ALL...MR. JOHN IS NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN AN UNREALISTIC THINKER (THE OPPOSITE WHAT HE DEFINE HE HIMSELF ), AND AT THE END WITH VERY DANGEROUS IDEOLOGY BASE IN THE PAST CENTURIES BUT WITHOUT ANY CLUE ABOUT THE DILLEMAS THAT THE ENTIRE HUMANITY WILL CONFRONT IN THE FUTURE (CLIMATE CHANGE AND MANY MORE QUESTIONS ), PERSISTING IN A CONFRONTATION AS SOLUTION...THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE AND REALLY STUPID.THE WORLD NEED COOPERATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE .
A great debate, except for the ridiculous apparition of a Falun Gong practitioner at the end. Prof Mearsheimer has been brutally realistic with "you're either with us or you're enemy" statement. I've always respected him. I can not debate that but can only hope that he is wrong about China, that there might be other possible models of great power politics, other than the American way. For one thing, even if China would seek its own version of Monroe Doctrine, it would have to be drastically different from the American one, simply because China's geopolitical location within the Eurasian continent is totally different from that of North America (Canada, Mexico, fish and more fish). Would it be not possible if China find in a multipolar balance against US's unipolar hegemony a more realistic option than an old US style of regional hegemony in East Asia? Why would it be the fate of human societies that democracies can only survive under a hegemonic world order? Would that be the only way for Australians (and other Asian nations) to walk out of their haunting nightmares?
To be honest, I was surprised about US policy, saying the global politics is a zero game. I don’t agree that. At least recently Singapore has made it clear that SG will not pick side.
Totally agree. There are an infinite number of destructive outcomes and hypothesis endlessly about potentially unhelpful motivations risks offending the very people you are trying to build a bond with. I think John competent missed the ball on the Chinese fellows question. It's extremely important to build cultural bonds. For instance later John says the Chinese are not sophisticated at use of soft power, a common lamentation of the west. But they are playing catchup with their populations quality of life index, and that pushes their laws to be harsh and possibly necessitates them to be out of sync with their own morality which might be an awkward truth that is not so hard to understand but is rarely mentioned to give context, as rice farming culture. So how do we move closer together is the question. And I don't have the answers. But cultural immersion is one key. I hand it to the Chinese expats in America and the American expats in China, hats off to you. And everybody just calm down and yes be optimistic. There are 1000 ways to smash a beautiful piece of glass but it is much harder to shape it so.
Yes, John Mearsheimer seems to not understand that the USSR was not a country. Shows his ignorance. Moreover, if the USSR was a country then it would be called Russia. Sorry, John, Russia is hardly defeated and is even stronger militarily than the USSR was. I might add they can, if pushed, blow you to bits!. How then have you beaten the USSR/Russia???? The US records in Asia stands own record: FAILURE, Vietnam, Korea, China, Myanmar etc. Not to mention the recent failures in Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, even the failure of the coup in Turkey. So John is saying that nuclear war between China and America is inevitable. So for Australia in order not to be hit harder than it would be (see US bases in Australia that will be hit), Australia's best policy to save her people is to "DECLARE NEUTRALITY". If Not, then we are all toast! John Mearsheimer is, in fact, threatening Australians. We are NASTY, do not follow us and we will hurt you! Not a friend but a bully as the world all know the US is today. You heard it from the horse's mouth! So John just shut up and keep your US flag where the sun doesn't shine war mongering pig!
If a nuke war were to be initiated, half of the humanity will be burned to ashes before the war even started. American still living in the 1940's trying to flash around his military capabilities around the world like a 90 years old gangster trying go onto the street again with his gun.
Both Mearsheimer and Hugh White are real gentlemen and they spoke honestly of what was in their minds. They are men of integrity and patriotic to their own nations. The same cannot be said of that Chinese lady Anastasia Lin who seemed to work for rewards.
Be kind. She needed the money for her nose job, for which she didn't get her money's worth. She probably needs the money for a second corrective one. Her face is incredibly plastic as are her allegiances.
July 2020: Mearsheimer's theory is playing itself out. I think his only weakness is his frankness to a gentile audience, especially concerning Australian economic prosperity. The Australians can find other customers in the region for their raw materials and ag products. No need to frighten them with the heavy hand of great powers with regards to economic prosperity. But at least he sticks to his expertise in geopolitics when he extrapolates on things like economic intercourse.
that US professor is using the typical US way of thinging to predict or interpret China's move, no wander they are losing. China dose not forcefully impose their agenda to other nations, on the other hands, US always force other nations to accept their agendas regardless the sovereignty of other nations. even in this so call discussion, the US prof is not thinking about Australia's interest but US's interest.
China will 3 times more forcefully impose agenda to other nations Once china gained self confident. Don't make hollow assumptions and over draft other peoples trust, otherwise I will do the same to you.
Ohhh bullshit. As soon as China see's that it will be able to impose it's will on other nations, without interference, IT WILL. China is communist to the core and is built on coercion, corruption and the use of force to achieve their ends. You might think the US is bad, but a world ruled by communists will be hell on earth.
A lot of comments from people who are mad that Mearsheimer states how things are, the world is violent and chaotic, this is how it works. When worst comes to worst, states always take the realist approach.
Can not speak for the rest of the world, however this IS the Condition Yuri Bezmenov speaks to sooooo CLEARLY. People getting mad at the Truth. Social Media proves this to be a Worldwide Issue.🎓💯 “📣📣Bezmenov: Because they know too much. Simply because, you see, the useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get dis-illusioned they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made a point, never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. This was my instruction-try to get into large circulation established conservative media. Reach movie makers, intellectuals, so called academic circles, cynical egocentric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie. This are the most recruit-able people, people who lack moral principles, who are either too greedy or suffer from self-importance. They feel that they matter a lot. These are the people KGB wanted very much to recruit. So, basically, America is stuck with the demoralization unless, even if you start right now here this minute, you start educating huge generation of Americans, it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism. Most of the American politicians, media and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living at the peace time. False. The United States is in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not comrade Andropov, of course, it’s the system, however ridiculous it may sound, the world communist system, or the world communist conspiracy. Whether it scares some people or not I don’t give a hoot. If you’re not scared by now, nothing can scare you. But you don’t have to be paranoid about it. What actually happens now that unlike myself, you have literally several years to live on unless the United States wake up. The time bomb is ticking. Every second, the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it. This is the last country of freedom and possibility. Griffin : Ok, so, what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people? Bezmenov : Well, the immediate thing that comes to my mind is of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of real patriotism, one. Number two, to explain the real danger of socialist communist whatever, welfare state, big brother government. If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help the United States, you must kiss goodbye to your freedoms, including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison inmate, all this freedom will vanish. It will evaporate in five seconds including your precious lives. The second thing, the moment, at least part of the United States population is convinced that the danger is real. They have to force their Government, and I’m not talking about sending letters, signing petitions and all this beautiful noble activity. I’m talking about forcing United States Government to stop aiding communism.”
@@jshroud Bezmenov was your typical Soviet dissident who's relevance was based on his criticism of communism and the Soviet state. However, the idea that patriotism and nationalism is what we used to have in the US versus "demoralization" that we have today is not necessarily true. And the fantasy that we are headed towards being a socialist welfare state is a myth in itself. Post ww2 America spent far more on infrastructure and overall public welfare in proportion to GDP than the US does today. All of these increases in spending on things that benefit the public have been followed by economic booms. Government intervention in the market has always ended up increasing competition and lowering prices, while conservative economics and policies has created a state with crumbling infrastructure and even less cooperation with our allies. The left in the US are definitely not Communist sympathizers, that is a McCarthyistic myth that somehow has gained steam again in the 21st century despite the numbers not existing to back up the accusation. It wasn't true during the cold war, and it isn't true now. It was nothing more than a way for conservatives such as McCarthy to target and discredit political opponents who had no history of communist ties. He tried to accuse Dean Acheson of being a homosexual and thus a communist while in reality he was neither. American nationalism leads to populism which creates an easy target for foreign propaganda, look at the sources of most right-wing "alternative" news outlets. One of the biggest is NTD which is a Chinese anti-communist religious movement that has a huge hold on rightwing digital media and is referenced by other outlets which usually have the word "patriot" or "conservative" in their titles. The Russian government overwhelmingly preferred Trump and conservatives to Biden, just watch RT for a couple days and it is quite obvious, and look at how many conservative outlets cite RT articles to discredit democrat opposition. The Soviet Union used nationalism and patriotism as a way to control the population in their police state, Bezmenov was literally a foreign agent who is routinely cited by Conservatives to undermine the left in the US. Why? Because those who are easiest to control will believe in anything that supports their existing beliefs.
@@coffelt683 That’s a lot to unpack.💨😮💨 “The Soviet Union used nationalism and patriotism as a way to control…….”. ☝🏾EVERY single Nation that wants to exist as a Nation, especially as a Strong, Independent Nation, uses Patriotism and Nationalism. Indeed, without these Concepts being used extensively and judiciously, there WOULD BE NO NATION.👎🏾These concepts are part of how Nations are formed, survive, grow and prosper.👀 I would also put forth that MANY people, regardless of Ideology, are embracing more Communistic Ideas and Principles and are aided by the Chinese Strategy of “Pimping” out the rest of the world. I believe many people do not consciously THINK they are embracing Communism, yet much anecdotal and direct evidence PROVES many are doing as much.💯💯 China, meaning the Communist Party, is simply attempting to take advantage of HUMAN NATURE. GREED would be a major component that is obvious to anyone at this point. Going back to before Obama, AMERICAN companies were begging the U.S. government to intervene because China is “Stealing” intellectual property and many other grievances, while still doing Business with China for the M-O-N-E-Y and refusing to Voluntarily pull out of China. Hmmmm, much like Industry leaving America for China and the collapse of the Industrial middle-class that Biden’s predecessor P-R-O-M-I-S-E-D to bring back to the United States.😐 Strong Nations were and are built on much more than “Sugar, Spice and everything Nice”. The United States has a long history of WAR in its relatively short time of existence. War is a REALITY of nation building. COWARDICE is also a R-E-A-L-I-T-Y before, during and after nations actually engage in Armed Conflict. “Intellectual Cowardice” as I call it, the practice of doing and engaging in POLICY, RULES, REGULATIONS and LAWS that would lead to war and then trying to rationalize SENDING OTHERS to fight in Y-O-U-R place when such Armed Conflict is unavoidable, is a MAJOR REASON OUR DEMOCRACY IS IN PERIL.🤗 ⬅️THAT PART🚨 Make no mistake, Male, Female, Other🤣, Republican, Democrat, Libertine, Progressive…..we are all infected to some degree. The U.S. is about to have surgery to remove a Malignant Growth, a number of Cancerous Cells.🎓💯 Question is, are you one of those Cancerous Cells!?🙃 How does the U.S. pinpoint these Cancerous Cells?🤔 Do we keep the Cancerous Cells for study or dispose of them?🧐
@@klownking4835 Honestly I have changed my mind on China in the past 2-3 years. Xi has made China drastically less respected on the world stage and did nothing to try and reign in the predictable debt crisis which is starting to collapse. Chinas growing middle class has made production more expensive, meaning that their main attraction of cheap labor is becoming less and less applicable. And their increasingly bleak human rights record is scaring a lot of influential non-state actors and organizations. It has become clear the Xi has not followed previously established CCP standards, and his constitutional changes have paved the way for making the country even more authoritarian.
Historically China had been a dominant but peaceful civilization, and is expected to resume that role. Mr.Mearsheimer does not understand China who had declared it does not aspire to be a hegemon, and is prudent enough to rise peacefully past US in Asia. Australia will eventually engage more with China than with America which is a declining power, although it'll be an awkward adjustment process. Mearsheimer is an American imperialist thinker, is off base.
Disagreed . China conquered all the plains which is why China is huge throughout history. The only place that stop China for future expansion is desert in the north, to the west dense forest in Vietnam and Himalayan near Tibet , south is ocean . And in the ancient time logistics is a costly nightmare
@@jiahao485 absolutely fact and truth. Thousands years of dynastic history , each dynasdy started with wars & violence, ended with wars & violence. Classical expansionist. The claim "China has always been peaceful nation" is typical CCP propaganda that brainwashes many.
@@jiahao485 When China was on top of the world, being the richest and the most powerful country in the world when Europe was still in Dark age, it never colonized any neibouring countries, and had been living peacefully with its biggest neibour India for Thousands of years until Angelo Saxon came. Anglo Saxon invaded nearly all countries in the world, so don't project them onto China! Twisting China''s history, including that of many other non western countries, demonizing China's culture, including that of many other non western countries and condescending all other non white races, including Chinese, badmouthing China and ill interpretering everything about China, spreading lies about China.... are what Anglo-Saxon medias and haters like you are doing, you should feel shame of yourself as such a low quality human being!
Listening to these Angelo Saxon elites talking, the so called Western value of human right, equality and freedom are all BS in their eyes, or these value ONLY serve for Angelo Saxon people! What is aggression? What is coerce? Who is Nazi? Didn't these white "gentlemen" provide us a perfact lesson?
China is the one who buying most of Australias goods，thats just the fact，the better China will be，the more Australia goods China can buy，the better Australia will be too，you cant ask US to buy most of your goods，thats just the fact
Explain this security vs properity logic to me: If Canberra sides with Beijing and China dominates East Asia, what security issues will Australia face? Even if China becomes a big bully like the US, Australia will not be any worse off. But if Australia sides with the US and China fails to dominate East Asia, Australia loses its biggest customer and trader partner, while the US is still a big bully. How is this a choice?
@@darbyheavey406look at the legal structure that subjugates the militaries of Japan and Sk under US indopacom, as well as Wall St owning majority and controlling shares in all the G7's banks and major firms. Think again. It's called neocolonialism.
this needs to be btoadcast across australia on free to air tv several times and must be shown in senior schools and unis. We need to open our eyes and see clearly what we are getting ourseleves into. Great talks and great questions from audience and moderator alike.
Prof Mearsheimer's confident view of US power was stated more than two years ago. What Mear did not consider beyond US strengths were its serious deficiencies: the intelligence and integrity of its ruling-class. US leaders make serious mistakes in policy-making. US leaders serve a very greedy and thoughtless constituency. The developments since Mear's address prove I am correct. A major development of this sort is the wedding of Russia and China. That was promoted since February 2014 by the stupidity and greed of the Neocons within the ruling-class, such as Victoria Nuland, who helped instigate the effort, along with the British, the Poles, the Balts and others to bring Ukraine in due course into NATO. As a result of unending rejection, Russia, which wanted to be part of western Europe, now is joined with China! The two together are now the biggest guys on the block that Mear remembers from his boyhood in NYC.
The incompetence is so great that the ruling class in USA has no other expert on foreign policy than Henry Kissinger, a 90 yr man. The ruling class of USA has become decadent, hedonistic, self serving and utterly blind about the developments in international affairs. They miscalculated Putin's response 100%. They are so behind the times they think they are dealing with the same Russia from 1994. They thought they could just grab Ukraine and blackmail Putin for concessions. Its incredible how much power is concentrated in the hands of literal idiots. They are so incompetent the Russians even recorded their phone calls. Im sure you know about Nuland's call to the American ambassador in Ukraine, where they discuss who to put in power. Its embarrassing. Russia never wanted to be part of Western Europe btw, and neither the West could ever allow this for 2 simple reasons. Russia is a major power with its own independent interests which literally are being denied by the West in the last 300 years. Russia literally cannot be part of the West because Russia holds 1/7th of the Earth's landmass and every known resource known to man is found in abundance on its territory. Russia is, by a large margin the richest country in natural resources in the world and this has greatly worried the Western economies for centuries literally. Russia, if given an open unchallenged access to the world oceans, can literally crash the world's economic order by simply overflowing the world with cheap resources making it the richest country in a matter of few decades. The West, Starting with the BRitish and the French Empire, has been fighting Russia tooth and nail so they wont get warm water port access anywhere. Russia has no warm water port which means Russia has no economically viable way to transport its resources. So you see, Russia's interests are diametrically opposite with those of the West. The West can never allow Russia full access to its markets and this is why Russia has been pushed aside for so long. This is something that has to be done from geostrategical point of view. I mean, its scary to think that Russia can literally overflow the market with not just their own raw resources, but their own products made in Russia. It is scary enough as it is just them exporting gas and oil. Mind you they have even diamonds more than South Africa. Russia is deliberately held isolated. Their "marriage" with China is just a natural way of them crossing the barrier and entering the Chinese market. Russia is just very very important to both China and USA. But mind you - Russia is not there to serve either. This is why dealing with Russia has always been difficult. Both China and the West want them to be their junior partners and Russia wont accept that role ever. So they are certainly not in marriage with China but more like being friends with benefits. The first moment when Russia and China's interests dont align- Russia wil bail out and continue their own policy. So far both are interested in grinding down USA because Russia wants its power in Eastern Europe and Central Asia back and China wants Eastern Asia back.
John asserts that trade with China continues after Australia cements further its alliance with the US. He also states here and elsewhere that the US Cold War with China had already started. What he didn’t say is that the drop of two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities first signaled intentions towards the Soviet Union. This was followed by economic wall built to suppress the economic rise of the Soviet Union, signalled the parting shot for the first Cold War were the speeches by Churchill and Truman about an Iron Curtain. The former was a tragic attempt at frightening the Soviet Union. The US can’t compete locally with China in manufacturing unless it massively increases productivity on the assembly line. It will not attempt to build another country’s manufacturing prowess to fill the gap. According to historical precedent, China’s economy will have to be gutted. That is what a Cold War will produce. we are already seeing heavy sanctions against Russia and peripheral states that are adamant on keeping their sovereignty. This war with China could leave both countries badly bruised. Giving the opportunity for a third per to gain an advantage. Australia’s choice isn’t going to be simple. The best outcome is for the US to double down on bringing back a competitive manufacturing base. That investment will require a scaling down of its international commitments to allies. Measheimer often states how expensive the Iraq/Afghanistan adventures were. the China/Russia adventure is going to be even more expensive. As things stand now, the US's belligerent position is not certain and Trump is being bolstered by part of the blob that sees this problem. Australia needs to diversify its alliances. Not just China, the US and UK but also Russia, India and Japan. This seems to be a strategy many countries are feebly trying to engage with like immediate success.
We do not need a domestic manufacturing base....We just need one that isn't in our peer competitor and that can be maintained easily during a war. Have a whole hemisphere
@@elmersbalm5219 77% of their economy is involved in American trade so if that's true, which it may be. They have done a terrible job. Next stop Central America
Australia is doing really well in the Pacific against China. The Deputy PM just called Pacific people "fruit pickers" and the arrogant buffoon Morrison upset everyone. So PRC is not good at soft power. Australian racists are worse. LOL
Thirty per cent of our exports go to China and Mershiemer says we must choose. OK lets accept that. Then he tells us what the choice must be. That's not choosing. We are being dictated to. And by the way we lose about 500, 000 jobs and our economy tanks. We lets choose. Fuck off America.
The US has no problem using Australia as a pawn in their cynical geopolitical game. If Australia is obliterated and sacrificed, so be it... The sooner Australians realize this, the better off they’ll be...
If that was true, we would have allowed Japan to invade Australia and when they did then we would have hit Japan. Makes more sense if you think of it like that, in fact I might have done that. Why swing down and block the invasion plans. Be that as it may, rest assured that neither China nor USA has plans to invade or bomb Australia. No matter what side you pick, you will not see any action on your land. There is value in it between two great powers, they would go right for the heart of each other.
As opposed to the Chinese angels, haha. I think in reality, however cynical the foreign policy establishment is, the demos of the Anglosphere are so culturally connected that the politicians wouldn't get away with it unless it was a survival decision.
Huge White is smart. US is withdrawing. Australia has to establish its own armed force and make independent decisions. Standing neutral won’t make US embarassing.
Learn from history. China is saying this is a global village, we need to work together, be mutual beneficial and mutually prosperous. The world is going to change towards that direction. The economic system, the monetary system, the marketing and trades would be changing. The US confused himself and everybody else because of its programs to liberate the world. John is not a honest academic, if we follow his argument, the rest of the non western world must side China? British fell, it is time US to fall and it is her own choosing, do not blame others for it.
Australia can play the role, a very big role, to be the "link" between America and China. Why think of war? Think of peace. Think of cooperation and mutual gains. Otherwise Australia will get crush even before any war breaks out!
Lee, you need to think Realistic….. Not what would be Nice or Good, or what “should be” but instead facing the facts that are present and what is realistic to happen. Day dreaming isn’t gonna solve anything. I realize it’s alluring but it certainly will not bear fruit , that’s for sure.
John is a great American Scholar, but one problem he has is that his belief based on an assumption that Chinese will think the same way as the American in regard to the willingness to become a hegemony and how it will behave if that become true. However, it might be wrong. China is a country that built the Great Wall at the height of its power, the biggest defensive project on the planet 2000 years ago, which shows that it had a culture not aggressive as US when it has power.
Here's where Mearsheimer's fallacy reveals itself. The choice is 1) support the US by acting aggressively to contain China that will ensure China's animosity, or 2) Not supporting the US in this provocative containment policy. Mearsheimer says the US will lean on Australia in this second case, true, but refusal to accede to American demand on this issue (or going neutral) is insufficient to cause America to directly attack Australia in open warfare. On the other hand, if Australia does follow American anti-Chinese containment policy, this is an actively hostile action that can easily lead to open warfare between China and Australia. Embargoes are an act of war. So think carefully. China was a friendly trading state before the recent provocations by Australia acting on US demand. Do you really want a war with China in the pacific? What's wrong with being neutral and continuing to trade with whoever you want? Do you think China would insanely attack Australia in that situation? Or America would dare to attack Australia for neutrality? Who in the world has been attacked for following a policy of neutrality? Certainly not Switzerland! This is a false choice that Mearsheimer makes when he automatically assumes that a hegemonic China is bad for Australia. For the past 30 years, it seems Australia has done very well on China's growth has it not?
If it comes to that the Americans will just engineer a coup in Australia. They've been accused of doing it in the 1970s before, and they've certainly done it in other places, or so says John Bolton.
I love how the commenters here thinks Mearsheimer is some kind of a warmonger who came down to threaten Australia, seeing him as someone who's some kind of a decisionmaker in the US foreign policymaking process. Yeah, sure, its not like he has opposed like, 95% of US military interventions since the end of the Cold War...
This debate was posted 2 years ago. Wonder what they think now that China and Russia have formed an alliance (both militarily and economically). The point of the UN was so that all nations come together and agree on a set of rules that are fair and all will follow. It's good that China and Russia are working together to balance the bullying from the US.
@@globalforce It's a good sign that yuo can ignore them. Mearsheimer has opposed nearly every war since 1991 (he supported Gulf War I), yet he's a warmonger issuing "threats". He can't "threaten" Australia because he's not the president. he's just making a prediction.
When John Mearsheimer talked about the US taking out four peer competitors, he should have mentioned a fifth -- the British Empire. Or was he thinking that Churchill did it all by himself?
What do you mean by that? I’m not familiar with any US role in the decline of the British Empire. Certainly not on the scale of the US role in the decline of say the USSR.
@@lutherblissett9070 It wasn’t helped by the duplicitous behaviour of America that came in late in both world wars and emerged the richest country in the world. America didn’t suffer any economic downturn in spite of being in both world wars the same as Britain. Britain paid the heaviest price by bearing the brunt of both wars. Henry Kissinger famously said “ To be an enemy of America is dangerous, to be a friend is fatal “. In spite of America taking the moral high ground and projecting itself like in Hollywood films as the saviour of mankind a brief look at its violent history shows it is in no way able able to criticise China or anyone else. I am sick of giving verifiable examples on here so I will leave it to you to follow it up if you so wish.
China will NEVER force anybody to Choose... it is All in your head John. Other countries are Not forced to choose... Singapore stand neutral. All need to exercise Wisdom.
Many small states in this world , Kiwi included, can chart their own paths with pride and dignity into the future without needing to allies with any great power, in particula,r a notoriously war-monger one . why can't Australia ?
John, I respect you as a professor and your old fashioned view of the world. Your view might be right during the Cold War but not working for now. John please consider to retire asap. The world do NOT need “ containment “ or war. World need peace and communication between people!
Of course not. Westerners assume China would behave like themselves or like the way Soviet Union behaved just because of their shared political system (governed by the Communist Party). This is of course shallow and ignorant way of looking at China, as China is simply not Soviet Union and the Chinese culture is very different from that of Russia.
It is not about what he says it is about the "dollar" as the world reserve currency and the spoils that go with that. The only problem is interest to service the debt will become so much that the USA will implode and there will be absolutely nothing the USA will be able to do about that. China owns about 25% of USA debt and if they were to call the debt the USA has major problems.
The US owes China USD 1.1 trillion or 4% of US debt. The Eurocurrency market trades the equivalent in a day. The World bond market is worth USD 100 trillion. I assume repayment would be scheduled and repayment not at call.
@@tommyodonovan3883 I think you will find it is somewhat more... The end aim is to bankrupt the middle and lower class. Here is a clue... Carona Virus = Virus of the Crown... Which Crown? English Crown Foreign occupation of land and to bring under Rome's Control.
Listening to John, Australia is in a hard place. It sounds like America is threatening it, if I can't have you no one else will. He doesn't seem to understand that China can find other suppliers for Australian products if Australia is hostile to China, thereby greatly reducing its gdp.
You certainly don't understand that Australia can find other customers as US companies move out of China. The population of existing customers such as Japan and Korea, plus coming customers of India, Indonesia, Bangladesh... are nearly 3 times greater than China. Aussie products will be double up price every year as long as demands.
No. it will be the other way round. The US owns majority of Australia largest businesses including our banks. Commonwealth bank ANZ bank. National Australia bank. Suncorp metway bank. Bendigo Bank. bank of Melbourne. Rio Tinto mining corporation. Woolworth and many others. All Owned by majority of US investors. Losing a major trading partner hurts. But imagine losing our largest businesses we won't even have a centrelink to give us benefits.. you can see why Australia has no other choice but to back the USA. We can't trade at all if we have no businesses left to trade with. Guns is pointed at our heads. We've been ask to choose a side. We can't even go neutral as neither of them will let us. Australia can't afford to lose our business. We can always get trade with others...Australia has been blackmailed by both of them we are screwed
@@nathan-ck3je The owners of those companies would either sell off at a knockdown price or lobby the US govt to allow them to keep doing business. Chinese trade is sending money into Australia in exchange for raw materials while those American owners are simply sucking money out of the country.
_All_ Chinese intellectuals should watch it and stop _moralizing_ the discourse. If China wants to come out on top of the US it needs to think about, _how_ . Regional hegemony is not something 'found in the gutter', but the result of sophisticated diplomacy and national effort - challenging the 'status quo' requires nerves.
@Wayne Haile "China isn't trustworthy either." That is correct in the sense that China will pursue it's *national* *interest* - but who in his right mind would confuse *nation* *states* with _'trustworthy_ _individuals'_ ? China has the better track record though when it comes to colonization, imperialism and slave trade (building US railroads) in the region - while the benefits of associating with China became clear in the financial crisis of 1997 and 2008, not to speak of the *Asian* *Infrastructure* *Investment* *Bank* , offering an _alternative_ to the 'Washington Consensus', enforced by the the US controlled 'World Bank'. If You are disgruntled with the way Chinese do business in Australia during a _boom_ then _brace_ Yourself for the moment when Australia's trade with China will _shrink_ _significantly_ , no doubt 'happy times' for low income consumers that will have to do with the pricing of Western products and services...
@Wayne Haile Since You replied _politely_ and _rationally_ here, I'll ignore Your 'foreign' syntax. I agree with the premises of Your argumentation that 'Australia is caught in crossfire', but You seem to forget that Hugh White's suggestion of neutrality depends _entirely_ on the assumption that the US will _not_ pursue a policy of 'rollback' in regard to China's increasing influence. Mearsheimer refutes that assumption _energetically_ - and considering the election of Donald Trump by _half_ the US electorate, I tend to deem it plausible. The US hasn't turned itself into a military state for decades to let it's hegemony just slide - and neutrality (possibly including cutting ties with the British Commonwealth) would not be sufficient for Australia, it would have to carry the burdens of thermo-nuclear arms to deter a possible US attack (while China can be quite content with a neutral Australia). Nuclear proliferation is the one thing, all 'great powers' agree upon: "not, if we can help it!" (bombing of nuclear facilities in Iraq, spreading of a computer virus against Iran). It would have to be done with the help of others and 'overnight', e.g. transfering all four, aged Vanguard-class submarines from the British Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy as the last act of _military_ _transfers_ _within_ _the_ *Commonwealth* , _ending_ formally Australia's membership. Since Britain is the most important member of NATO, Australia couldn't remain associated - then the mere 30 millions of Australia's population will even be separated from New Zealand (unless similar procedures are undergone that could *federate* the two as a polity of their own). It becomes obvious that simply _remaining_ at the side of the US military would be _much_ _less_ *complex* - which leads to the economic consequences: "Australia has to lower our prices and look for others to trade with (...)" It's either _one_ ( *low* *prices* ) _or_ the _other_ (replacing most trade with China with other countries). In case of war there will be no such thing as _neutral_ trade in the *Pacific* - submarine and guided anti-ship missile warfare will lock down the *Strait* *of* *Malacca* and other avenues (e.g. the ports of *Manila* and *Nagasaki* , _if_ China's naval assets will have advanced enough), causing 'remote *blockades'* - if Australia can't feed itself (including considerations on water and salination of soil), it will _starve_ . At that time I'd say that the *conflict* *will* also *be* *global* as an *East-West* *confrontation* , including *Russia* and *Europe* as 'theaters of war' (especially, since the US 'managed' to _demonize_ and _alienate_ the Russian Federation into the arms of China's *'Shanghai* *Cooperation* *Organisation'* ). In other words: Australia would have to pursue a policy of economic *'autarky'* , producing all it needs _domestically_ , likely _replacing_ _wages_ _alltogether_ with some form of 'basic income', since Australians _can't_ compete internationally with *labour* *costs* - which could _transform_ Australia into an *Orwellian* *society* ('Ingsoc') that can't tolerate public debate or immigration anymore. Again, staying in the Western camp would ease these _grim_ prospects _considerably_ - although the threat of blockades would be real, the _largest_ _fleet_ _on_ _the_ _planet_ (in contrast to other fleets _combined_ ) would probably protect Australia's _convoys_ as it did during WW II (unless China achieves some sort of _technological_ _breakthrough_ e.g. in drone warfare, nullifying entire US supercarrier groups - which seems unlikely, considering China's _historical_ preference of _low-tech_ economic and scientific investment). Mind You, as an *Eurasianist* that _wants_ China to counter a _'decadent'_ Western influence, I consider it to be in Australia's _realistic_ *interest* to side with the US...
I'm curious. Can't a nation choose to be neutral anymore? What happened to the concept of non-alignment? Must all nations be forced to side with one military superpower or another?
China is building an empire and Australia will be its No 1 target if war comes. Why ? Because Australia is a vast resource-rich continent with a MERE 25 M occupying it. A huge prize for China. I believe tha war is coming; it is only a matter of time : when China's power exceeds that of the US in about 25 - 30 years, IMO.
All I hear is America will not allow Australia to stay neutral(“either with us or you’re against us“ mentality). China doesn’t ask australia to side with China. As long as australia doesn’t choose to be hostile to China, China is happy for australia to stay neutral. Unfortunately Australia has chosen not to.
Australia has chosen not to stay neutral probably because most Australians believe in the "liberal hegemony" policy (as quoted by Mearsheimer). Australians view the world as the "good guys" (US, Europe, Australia) vs the "bad guys" (Russia, China), so it is very natural for Australians to be hostile to the "bad guys".
Western nation being neutral is an oxymoron. Their national foundation is based on Christianity which sees the world through the prism good vs evil. There is no middle ground. The only time them being neutral is when 2 of their friends were engaged in a fight, and both are Christians themselves.
Australia would be foolish to pick USA - Each USA administration plays different games - one plays baseball- next one football - next one golf - China is consistent - so Australians will devastate themselves by playing different USA games just to keep up their silly ego
This is the worst comment section i have ever seen lol. Mearsheimer is expressing what he thinks is Americas point of view,. Based on deep knowledge. Comments are reacting like he's in the administration, advocating what he thinks America will do,. "He's threatening Australia! " LOL you guys are dense.
Hugh White could have given a stronger argument for Australia's alternative position. Australia can be pro-economy AND pro-security at the same time. It's not security vs economy, as Mearsheimer would want Australians to believe. Will US remove its base in Australia if Australia does not take on an anti-China posture? Of course not. Does China's threat on trade change Australia's decision on anything? If Australia falls into the trap of zero sum game, it's putting itself in the frontline of a war US is risking to maintain its hegemony at whatever costs, not necessarily paid by US thousands of miles away but by its allies in a proxy war. To adopt an aggressive posture to any country on behalf of another is not in Australia's interest nor anyone's. NZ and many Southeast Asian countries don't seem to be doing that. To have economic and security stability in the region is good for all. Hugh White made a strange statement that Singapore fell to the Japanese in World War II because Britain failed in its commitment. He went on to say that if US fails in its commitment, Australia will be left to defend itself. ASEAN countries want US to be in the region. But these countries hardly believe that if US withdraws (very very unlikely), China would march down Southeast Asia and Australia and make colonies of them. Why would Hugh White believe that? Is Mearsheimer tapping into this cultural fear that many Australians have of China? New Zealand and Singapore seems to show that you can have your cake and eat it by standing your ground. It has nothing to do with whether China is stronger than US economically or whether US is committed to this region. It has all to do with avoiding instability and a potential war in this region.
John Mearsheimer's veiled threat to an Australian Audience that being neutral and independent would translate to being an enemy of the US. And people just chuckle as if he were joking.
The threat is not veiled, indeed. But it has nothing to do with political theory. Hillary Clinton would have supported the 'pivot to Asia' just as Obama.
@@christophmahler I'll grant you that it is a direct threat. I say 'veiled' because this sinister point he makes is buried inside a supposedly academic lecture and presented as possibly comedic but the audience doesn't appear to notice the tongue and cheek.
It's just how international politics works because there is no higher power looking out for our survival other than the state. Therefore you have to be the biggest baddest one on the block. As for aligning with USA or China, Australia has a say in whether or not it can feed China's latent/economic power, which can translate to military power. If it makes China more powerful, USA will see it as a move against itself, and it would be. Even worse is if you're closer to China like Vietnam or South Korea, the geography will make it so that you have to pick a side because your country might become a battlefield.
Well spotted - this is probably the 3rd appearance I've seen where he's behaved a bit too unhinged, everyone has a weak spot.
He can get a little amped, but he is just saying - from the point of view of the Powers That Be in the USA - when push comes to shove in the geopolitical battle vs. China, you are either with us or against us. In this formulation, neutral means against us and that will be our conclusion (or the powers that be since the American public is generally clueless and disengaged on foreign policy). It's analysis not a threat!
Prof John is asking Australian to go fight a war with China for the US. Not for Australia. Is he willing to let his children or love ones join in the war and come back home in body bags? Of course the rich and powerful in US were exempted from being conscripted to fight the infamous Vietnam War? As the saying goes, "talking is cheap..." ...Once the body bags starts to pile up only then can one see the fallacy of his argument. Victory or defeat in a war does not depend on fire power alone. ... If ever Australia were to join in the war with the US, it is to contain China. But for the Chinese in China, they are fighting for their survival. Which is more powerful? Furthermore, Australia is geographically close to China wheres the US is more than 3000 miles away? Does it make sense for Australia to make China, your close neighbour an enemy? When push comes to shove, I agree with Prof Hugh White the best strategy for Australia is to stay neutral....Don't allow US nor China to push you around. Pursue your own security and foreign policies for the interest of Australia.
Clearly America must move its strategic nuclear forces to bases in Australia. This will have China meek and mild before Aussie might.
Don
@@donhansen1175 Do you think Australia will agree to that and be a target herself? Australian will never agree to that. I am sure iAmerica already tried but failed.
@John M ha ha ha You would be surprised....There are alot of crazy people around....even in the midst of American's corridor of powers...Some may already be harbouring the idea that America can easily win a nuclear war with China or even Russia...... The example is clearly in front of you. Your Pres Trump....To be polite, the most unique president in US history or sorry for being rude...the most unhinged, vindictive, callous, egoistical and powerful president in the history of the US who will do anything to get what he wants....This is really scary....
I agree that Australia should find a way to stay neutral However difficult that road may be. I say that because I can see the direction America is moving in and it’s isolationism. So for Australia, if they chose to ally with China then China will run roughshod over them. If they side with America against China, well... America will go home one day and the Chinese run roughshod over them more aggressively. Australia has more than enough distance between them and China whilst also being far enough out of china’s way to maintain neutrality without sacrificing their sovereignty. Picking side would only screw them.
@@deltanitros It is a misconception to say Australia's choice is between Economic Development or Security. It is not. In what way is China a threat to Australia? China's threat to Australia is a manufactured threat to drag Australia to go into a war just to contain China. I am not to saying that, as China becomes more powerful in the future it won't but who can see the future? To me, the only good reason for any sovereign state to go to war is an existential threat. Not to fight another country's war. And OMG, for the wrong reason as well. To sustain and enforce US hegemony? Not only Australians. Americans too should not allow their leaders to do that. I have seen Australia prospered over the last 30 years. Is a great country with great potential. It would be foolish to throw that away after all the sacrifices past Australians and its leaders have done.
I think the basic premise is flawed, that “you are with us or against us”. That is the voice of unipolar, global hegemony. With China, India, Russia, Indonesia rising, it is very likely the world will be multipolar with a UN that represents all and upholds international law. This of course is what the US does not want. It wants to act unilateral and maintain its exceptionalism.
USA likes or not don't make any difference, China just China ,it like not Syria or Afghan.
The global community is anarchic. The UN will never be able to represent nor uphold international law.
Australia just made her choice. She should ask USA for ££££
The U.N is neither united nor represents all. Its a tag team of despots and lackeys using a democratic forum to undermine democratic institutions and subvert justice. The reality is that being the top dog you get the most attention, when infact the treachery is committed lower down.
The UN with its security council and their individual veto power? You should also consider that laws are followed by those that can not afford to break them.
September 2021: Mearsheimer's theory continues to play out. Australis just ditched France to partner with USA and the UK to get nuclear submarines. To Australia has chosen sides.
Australia has been strongly along with US for decades and partners for over a century. The UK military is more dotted line. France broke the conditions on a contract, Mercantile Law not Foreign Affairs.
@@petersinclair3997 What were those conditions that France broke? Are you referring to the delays?
@@mattdrammett9937 France couldn’t deliver a nuclear powered sub. The US and AUS should buy the quite excellent French frigate because we need to expand the number of ships.
Prepare for a war.
@@darbyheavey406 France can deliver nuclear subs lol, Australia didn't ask for nuclear powered subs to begin with lol
For those of you who can't get your head around the Political Realist school of thought in International Relations, the following quote from Mearsheimer (which starts at 46:42) might help:
_"The point that I tried to make before is that in virtually every case I know in international history, when a state is forced to choose between prosperity and security, it opts for security because survival has to be its highest goal. This is in a way a tragic situation for Australia. I fully understand that Australia wants to maintain the status quo...but the fact is, that world is going away and as Hugh said you're going to be forced to make a choice. The United States is going to lean on you like you wouldn't believe, and the Chinese are going to lean on you like you wouldn't believe. And it has nothing to do with The United States per se or China per se or Australia per se, it's just the way international politics works. And great powers push hard on minor powers, or on middle-range powers and that's what's happening here."_
Many of the comments here demonstrate why the Liberal Hegemony project of the United States has and always will fail.
1. They can't accept the reality of great-power politics.
2. They ignore this reality and believe they can get around it.
3. They believe if only their worldview were given a chance, we would live in a democratic utopia.
4. They can't tell the difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements.
5. They get very angry at those who point out their worldview as being naïve, that it doesn't square with how the real world actually works.
The irony here is that those commenters who see the United States as a global bully, and at the same time think that Mearsheimer is an advocate or champion of this bullying behavior have completely misunderstood what Mearsheimer is talking about.
*They can't tell the difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements.*
Best comment ! Had to scroll a loooooong time past all the butt hurt appeasement people talking about bullies
No they didn't misunderstand what Meirsheimer's advocacy is. I agree that they may have misunderstood the way a realist sees the world and talks about the world, but Meirsheimer is clear, not only in this session, but several others that he is advocating for the US bullying. So two things can be true. He may be speaking as a realist, but he's also saying that based on the fact that he is American, he is advocating for a US victory. You did a great job stating Meirsheimer's realist positions against the liberalists and I applaud you for that. But don't for once believe that Meirsheimer is not advocating this bullying. His anti-liberalists views is because he they are not effective in maintaining US primacy, not because he's against the USA's destructive primacy.
@@nyaakewebo
It’s quite telling that people with a simplistic view of the world would get hung up on infantile language like “bullying” when talking about geopolitics.
The world is not simple: Si vic pacem, para bellum.
Also: What “destructive primacy” ?!
I guess you have not noticed the historically unparalleled world peace and therefore world prosperity since the US took over after WWII ?
@@AB-rg6lb I take it that you are from the US or the west. "In peace, prepare for war." That's what you said in Latin. And then you think people are hung up on bullying. You also think that US ushered in prosperity. Prosperity for who? If you are country like Libya, whose prosperity was destroyed by the US and the west, what would you think about your claim of prosperity? What would you say about bullying then? Let's name few of the countries that the US, and its western allies have sowed misery upon: Vietnam, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Iran, take your pick in Africa, take your pick in Latin America, North Korea, Russia, etc. These are just a few. What does preparing for war in the time of peace have to do with destruction of countries that did nothing against the US? The US have either sowed economic misery, or war upon most of the countries in the world. And why? Because they can. That's bullying. To think that people shouldn't be hung up on it, can only be said by someone coming from the bullying nation. Close your eyes for a minute. Now imagine, that you live in a country were kids will not know where their next meal will come from. Or imagine that as your daughter sleeps in her bed innocently, she could be murdered by a JDAM bomb. Now, tell me what you will think about the country that put yours in such a situation. And not because your country attacked them. Rather, just because they can and they want their corporations unrestricted access to your resources. You guys fail to even comprehend the misery your country has sowed upon the world. And you seem surprised that people is tired of your so-called "leadership".
I can guarantee many will choose prosperity, times have changed. China isn't out invading foreign lands. China is winning the economic race like it or not.
And prosperity brings security.
Don't use "responsible stakeholder" John, just use "obedient/lapdog stakeholder" you want China to be. Because responsible means responsible to international society not to US.
*'The man holding the sword makes the laws"*
-Caesar
What is a TRUE FOUNDATION BELOVED?
@@tommyodonovan3883 nothing is wasted but increased beloved! Life given and life kept indeed. Beloved make more Tommy like you! Love you truly without ceasing but with boldness. Keep it going!
US want to be the big boss forever! Human rights? Equality? Democracy? Freedom? Aren't they universal values? Sure, Not for non white!
“With us or against.” Prepare for regime change, Australia! Lol - Unabashed American exceptionalism on display. Let’s keep in mind the US has not won a war in a very, very long time even with countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.
Gulf War.
You didn't listen to a thing Mearsheimer said. You are just vomiting up your own prejudices against the US. It wouldn't matter what he had said, you would still hate him and Americans.
Don't Lie! Of course the US has won a war. The invasion of Grenada back in '83 was super successful. Of course you'll counter that Grenada is tiny and only has a population of 100K but it's still a triumph for the mighty US. An elephant boasting of crushing a gnat is a win. Shameful and a bit embarassing but a win all the same.
It's not winning the war! It's making war and profit from the arms industry!
Korea
Paul Keating is spot on about Australia joining ASEAN to ensure Australia’s security and territorial integrity. ASEAN can stay neutral but not Australia by itself. In fact the truth of the matter is China had already given up on Australia. China had in the past considered Australia as the gateway to the West. But not anymore. That’s why China had hit Australia very hard on Australia’s exports to China, discouraged Chinese students to study in Australia and Chinese tourists visiting Australia. China had deleted Australia.
@@soulsphere9242 Rubbish. The Chinese government clearly thinks Australia has chosen to side with the US. The future world order will be China and Russia vs the US and its allies. China is revaluating Australia as a hostile nation, it is clearly not going to "meet Australia half way".
That is AU's choice, a bad choice.
Yes you are RIGHT but a,,, don't tell the sheep 😮
The problem with the West is that it understands and looks at world history only in terms of the past 2 century and no further. The middle East and the Europeans sees different. That's why they are joining the belt and road.
The second speaker gets it! He is a realist and this is really how “ hegemons” rule. Again not saying its right and wrong- it depends where you are sitting- but I thank him for making me realize how this can play out, as candid as he may be.
I agree with his premise that countries that are too strategic cannot play neutral when this( the cold war) heats up! Not gonna happen. ..
There would be no heating up or Cold War. USA has no strong allies in that region. Australia is only 30 million country, has no significant military influence in the region. India will never commit because they have great relationship with Russia and certainly India wont fight China without first establishing a formal military alliance with USA. USA will never commit to a formal alliance- so its all fantasy.
USA simply doesnt have any answer to China. its that simple. The US armed forces is overextended everywhere around the world. If they commit in East Asia- there would be problems elsewhere.
If Anti Chinese alliance was possible- it would have been there since the 1960s
Hmm..methink Mearsheimer miscalculate or is mistaken on several counts. 1. The US didn’t win the war with Nazi German, the Russians did and paid the price with 25 million lives.2. The US didn’t win any war over the Soviet Union. It was Gorbachev strategic mistake to thought and went the democratic way and in the process, fragmented and destroyed the Soviet Union. 3. Arms sale to Taiwan is a card that US played and US would not go to war for Taiwan. 4. HiTech industry goes to where the $$ are, not wars. It is the Pentagon, the military industrial complex and the political elite in the US that wants to remain top dog and militarily dominant. 5. With a combined domestic and foreign debts of USD22 TRILLION, has US the economic wherewithal? 6. The Quad argument is dead in the waters. Will India challenge China when it is a member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Pakistan is also an SCO member as well as China’s ally but India’s arch enemy. Will India has the means to tackle China when its hands are full? As for Japan, China is a neighbor and nuclear armed with increasingly more powerful ad sophisticated weaponry, will Japan challenge China? As for Australia, the 4th member of the Quad, is Australia prepared to break its rice bowl? 5. Since 1945, US had fought 5 wars: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguably, the US may claim the Gulf war. Is China weaker than the other 4 today? 6. Cuba continues to be its own boss and not a vassal nor colony of US. Mearsheimer is disingenuous on this one. 7. China will continue to grow, it has where else to go. Perhaps Mearsheimer conveniently ignored China’s Belt and Road Initiative or China Africa Fund projects which has been 20 years and running.
@Minzhi Ye of course. when you are trapped in a kleptocratic corrupt dictatorship the answer is not reform but to be an even meaner dictatorship. just look at north korea for example, what a wonderful place!
WW2 was won mainly with American steel, British Intelligence and Russian lives.
@@charlesquah Hmm...you're welcome to imbibe your favorite Kool Aid.
Hmm... methinks numbering your responses in such a ringing way is a nice rhetorical device. It makes your response seem like a definitive refutation, doesn't it? And yet you have only the most tenuous grasp of Mearshimer's position. Though it is hard to tell: some attention to basic grammar and lucid communication might help.
@@plekkchand You're entitled to your opinion but an ad hominem remark does not make you out to have a monopoly on intelligence.
Australia is surrounded by fish. Why pick an enemy that far? Nothing good when a country chooses to be a warmonger.
Why fear the Chinese ecinomic success? If "neo-realism" is to be followed theoretically, the longer history of China and it's relationships with the existing world cultures PROVE China is not interested in ruling the world in a heavy handed manner. Otherwise Western governments and all world cultures would have Chinese immense influences on government, art, music, language, etc. This discussion has a blind spot. Fear of a country having been the victim of white supremacy doing the same atrocities to a white nation built upon white supremacy. The United States and Britain would be in the same boat should a united Africa or a country like Nigeria became a superpower. Getting "real" with oneself about this would enable the panelists to get over another "pretty girl on the block".
Agree with Prof Hugh White that Australia should have an independent mind of its own and not just do what the American ask Australia to do.
What right has America has to force other countries to choose "them or us" ? What right has America to prevent another country like China to grow and prosper ?
Australia has a right to be independent and sets its own course and it does not have to rely to either America or China to assert itself in Asia.
Very well said 👍
The US owns majority of Australia largest businesses including our banks. Commonwealth bank ANZ bank. National Australia bank. Suncorp metway bank. Bendigo Bank. bank of Melbourne. Rio Tinto mining corporation. Woolworth and many others. All Owned by majority of US investors. Losing a major trading partner hurts. But imagine losing our largest businesses we won't even have a centrelink to give us benefits.. you can see why Australia has no other choice but to back the USA. We can't trade at all if we have no businesses left to trade with. Australia can't stay neutral as the US isn't allowing us to.they asking us to pick a side. Guns pointed at our heads.
That’s detached from the reality. The Right the US has is a big fucking army and a big fucking economy
"Right" has nothing to do with it. The US offered Oz a choice of it or China because it CAN.
@@robertwright4906 yes, and a vindictive streak
China is asking AUS to continue doing what it already is doing, selling stuff to China, US is asking AUS to commit to a potential (economic or actual) fight with a regional dominant power far from the US but right across the street from AUS.
Just saying, 2 very different packages.
That is correct.
But being threatened by the nuclear arsenal and the super-carriers of the leading _naval_ power, China would have to offer the equivalent of eternal salvation in order to convince the Australians - with their major settlements exposed at the coastline - to fight at their side.
China didn't side with Japan when the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' was offered to them (although then, a _chauvinist_ Japan had clear ambitions to _colonize_ China which can't be claimed of present day China).
What do You think, how would You convince Australia - and other US allies - to switch ?
@@christophmahler 'US Allies' is euphemism for US subordinates. Your argument rests on a logic of siding with country X with the most military power and ganging up like a bunch of bullies on a targeted country. The sane alternative is multilateral cooperation, world peace, and supporting the United Nations is a consistent message from China.
@@ExplorerBob
"US Allies' is euphemism for US subordinates"
I don't care if You name them _vassals_ , _slaves_ or 'bitches' - the only thing that matters is if they will _fight_ alongside the US.
"Your argument rests on a logic of siding with country X with the most military power and ganging up like a bunch of bullies on a targeted country."
That is correct. That is basically how military alliances are formed, unless You are ISIS and believe that god will do most of the fighting for You and convert the populace to Your side...
"supporting the United Nations is a consistent message from China"
That is true - but irrelevant because the UN has only so much influence as it is granted by the global superpower, the US. You didn't really think that the UN was headquartered by the US in _New_ _York_ because Americans prefer being overruled by foreign interests instead of a 'Pax Americana' ?
"multilateral cooperation, world peace"
These are all _ideological_ , _normative_ phrases, constantly propagated by the same liberals that layed waste to Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. We both understand that these formulars are the 'offical language' in which international relations are *framed* , but we also understand that political _action_ is organized along other principles (i.e. when the US _covertly_ supports Islamic extremism in Xinjiang and then complains _publicly_ about 'concentration camps').
That is not to say that cooperation can't be a powerful force to solve problems that overwhelm single nations, but You tell me how _consolidated_ the *'Shanghai* *Cooperation* *Organization'* is - is it ready to challenge US global supremacy or does it still have to bide time in order to be an alternative i.e. for countries like Germany and India ?
I understand Your frustration with the US - believe me, some Germans know 'a thing or two' about the _idealistic_ *'League* *of* *Nations'* and Woodrow *Wilson's* promises of *'self-determination'* - but none of that is the fault of _political_ _realism_ as an _analytical_ _tool_ of international affairs.
@StrategicFooyoo
"regardless what Australia does with regard to staying friends with china the US won't act."
I didn't mean to say that Australia will be nuked if it declares _neutrality_ by leaving NATO and the 'Commonwealth of Nations' (without aquiring a nuclear deterrence), not even if it joins the 'Shanghai Cooperation Organization'.
But it will be considered for nuclear strike, the moment the US and China are at _open_ war and Australia is nowhere to be found among the ranks of US naval operations in the Pacific.
According to Mearsheimer, the US will likely _demonize_ and sabotage Australia as a 'rogue state', if it actively pursues to breach non-proliferation (while China may merely protest diplomatically).
On the other side of the argument, Hugh White appears to assume, the US will be too busy with the 'European theatre' or even with securing it's vast coastline - both of which will be contested, if the SCO can help it by then (e.g. increase in submarine activity) - and that any violations of territorial integrity towards e.g. Japan without US military intervention would be the signal for Australia to go nuclear.
But I think, he doesn't understand the _absolute_ _'jealousy'_ of *seapower* to _any_ challenge of *maritime* *communication* which would warrant the deployment of *cyber-attacks* on Australia's nuclear research facilities or even the use of *airstrikes* (an 'act of war') - similar to Israel.
In WW II the United States of America went from not having a modern army to speak off, to invading North Africa, Italy and France across the Atlantic _while_ fighting the formidable Japanese navy from the Aleutes to the Philippines in the Pacific within mere *6* years (since George Marshall became Chief of Staff in 1939).
All of that without being _directly_ provoked by Nazi Germany (but of course, being _conveniently_ attacked by the Japanese at Hawai, resulting in _formal_ declarations of war).
John Mearsheimer is telling Australia - take their money from trade but you fight China with us. Australia may be a fool but China is not.
Mearsheimer to Australia at 25:50: "so you'll sacrifice prosperity for security"
Indeed we have. CIA coup against Whitlam eliminated a government committed to the nationalisation of the mineral wealth of Australia, and the US diplomatic coup against Rudd eliminated a government that wanted to tax the mining companies. Both Whitlam and Rudd represented the national interest, and they were cut down by the US which would prefer Australia remained a resource-extracting banana republic that maintains Chinese faith in the US dollar.
So yes, we have sacrificed "prosperity" for "security".
Exactly.
Hi Jay! I follow you on FB. Thank you for directing me to this video.
Also the US investors own all of Australian largest businesses including mining corporations and Australia banks. If Australia was to choose sides with China. Exactly who's businesses will run these companies if the US pulled out it's interest with Australia. Australia won't have any companies left to even trade with China. So we are looking after our own interest. I don't think a few Chinese owned dairy farm is going to give Australia a GDP mate.
I didn't realize John Pilger watched these kinds of RUclips videos...
There was an opportunity for Fraser to break protocol by blocking Supply, being aggressive, Fraser saw that opportunity and took it. Whitlam and Nixon didn’t get along, “maybe” Pine Gap was involved. However, in 1975, Ford and Fraser, who did get along, were in power.
@@scottbuchanan9426 huge compliment.
sept 2021: his comments about how a nation will "sacrifice prosperity for security" are feeling like what's happening in the US rn.. they are sacrificing our prosperity for their security 😐
US citizens certainly feel very strongly that the United States is sacrificing our domestic prosperity for “national security”
John Mearshiemer is entertaining to listen to...
So Mearshiemer says we will have to have a drop in our standard of living for the Empire. Go fuck yourself
Entertaining but ultimately based on flawed logic. He's asking countries to come together to stop China's rise. That means reducing trade and other engagements. China has a big plan to grow trade. What has America got? All you see in the US news is Wall Street (which benefits the top 2%). What's the rest going to do to get by if not on trade? These guys have gone rogue! I tell you what I think... USA is one big Ponzi scheme on the verge of collapse and these guys are paddling hard as hell. If they stop, the boat will sink (Read the recent revelation about GE and Deutsche bank). When you ride the tiger, you can't get off. The world should worry about that!
@@JK-ix8zi Agree. 30% of our exports go to China. He just says drop it for "security". What security? Another US war
Paul Matters
Why are you saying that to me? All I said was his story telling style is interesting.
I never said I agree with his trade or industrial policies.
@@erickrcisnerosMate my apologies fir the misunderstanding. My go fuck yourself was directed at Mearshiemer not you
How can it be in Australia’s interests to side with America that trades only 5% with Australia and lose the Chinese market and in the event of war have its major cities decimated ( Australia has no defence umbrella against missiles with which the war is likely to be fought ). Australia should do what America has done for decades and that is do what is best for itself.
As is made clear now, to be a proxy of american agendas is to suffer complete destruction like ukraine or your economy sabotaged as with Germany made clear with the latest Seymore Hersch revelations.
This guy (John) says it all, sums up the U.S. "We are a ruthless power, and we dont accept peer competition" Your either with us or our enemy. U.S. are basically threatening us.
We don't accept funding a country that uses our system, which they have benefited from greatly, only to leave the system when it no longer benefits them and sets up a regional system. Any countries that would join that regional system would be seen as just as bad, so if we are going to leave our system we might as well make it hurt.
China is a collectivist Nation. We hoped opening their markets would get them to become more individualistic and they would end up staying in the liberal order and supporting it. That has failed.
@@meganh9460 what a rubbish answer. The position of U. S. and western domination has been built on the back of colonial exploitation, slavery and thievery over hundreds of years and is still going on. Any benefits that China has received are only because the U. S. A. predominantly was able to access and exploit a cheap labour and manufacturing opportunity. We here in Australia also have many of your huge corporations that have monopolised many areas and destroyed much of our own home grown companies etc. Cant blame China at all. As stated in the video, U. S. policy is such that it will not tolerate a more powerful peer trading partner and is willing to go to war to ensure that that will never happen. The United States has a despicable and totally selfish ideology in relation to the rest of the world. There's a big ugly elephant in the room and guess who that is?
@@peterbluesman I don't really give a shit if you think its a rubbish answer lol. Your opinion doesn't matter on what the answer is.
Oh jeeze, are you trying to lay all western problems at the US feet now. Slavery, as if that was a pure Western Idea... even tho there are more slaves in China than there is anywhere else today. Go fight that if you care about it so much, talk about rubbish.
And that cheap labor helped pull 300 million people out of poverty, you are welcome for the free access to our markets. Lol. You have lived under the liberal order so long you don't even see, you expect it as your due. Jesus, you are the reason I don't fight it.
@@peterbluesman ''As stated in this video'' By people who don't make US foreign policy. Good for you smart guy lol.
@@meganh9460 Liberalism is even slowly decaying across North America and Europe now. Other than the elites, no one still believes in the neoliberal fantasy world of Francis Fukuyama in the west.
For 1800 years China is an economic power house then, when most country in Asia is poor. But China did not invade an inch of their land or grabbed their spice or their trade products. But is different from western countries. Name one country that the west did not invaded the poor countries and robbed their wealth, such as oil, spice, minerals etc.
China did try to invade Vietnam and Cambodia. Taiwan India and did invade.Tibet.
@@nathan-ck3je exactly. Apart all the territory we have invaded and will invade (south China Sea, Doklam) we don't invade. /s
You might want to study Chinese history. The Chinese happily did invade their neighbors and only stopped when the maximum reach achievable with the administrative means available to them in their time was reached. Maybe don't limit yourself to CCP approved text books when you actually try to do this ...
@@nathan-ck3jeWrong. taiwan $ tibet are internal issues. others you mentioned were border conflicts and never intended to invade for occupation or colonization.
Observations:
1. Mearsheimer for some reason is rather nonchalant and hawkish in tone in this debate and hence comes off as somewhat condescending to his Australian audience here.
2. To pull the Anastasia Lin rabbit out of the hat at the end: what a bombshell...gratuitous and unncessary
3. if you watch Mearsheimer in his May-2020 CISAus discourse with Singapore's Kishore Mahbubani, he's altogether a more considered debater and without any of the bravado of this discourse with Hugh White. Perhaps Mearsheimer was being overzealous here and deliberately tried to shake his Australian audience out of their comfort zone into making a choice.
I noticed Anastasia Lin too -- she was already a statement from the Aus side.
He's telling the POHMYS the way it is, fuk US and we will take a personal interest in seeing Australians suffer.
@@tommyodonovan3883
Maybe you’re referring to the Pommies. Far as I know, Pommies is the way ex colonial subjects and detractors refer to the Brit colonialists, nothing to do with our Aussie mates. If Mearsheimer were in the presence of Hawke or Keating, he would get a verbal hiding he’d be unlikely to ever match or forget. For all it’s worth, the Aussie’s have never stumbled in the Asian military theatres or at least in anywhere near the catastrophic failures that America has had in Korea and Vietnam. it’s high time anachronisms like Mearsheimer tone down his rhetoric. It’s not just that it’s obnoxious, but in 2021, it’s wholly comical because the powershifts are already well underway especially in the Asia Pacific.
@@kindface POHMY= Prisoners of her Majesty.
Look at the consequence and situation of Ukraine when it decided to side with US. what the outcome will be if Ukraine remains neutral? Will they suffer such a great loss and casualty? wake up, Austrilian.
Lol, looks like everything he said was correct. Everyone is siding with the U.S. against China. Their ponzi scheme economy is collapsing and everyone is starting to see that it's nowhere close to as strong as the Chinese propaganda tries to make it out to be.
Why would not Australia survive without US? US is threatening Australia by saying “if you side with China, you are our enemy, you don’t wanna know how nasty we could be” - how could Australians laugh at that knowing they are being threatened?
They don’t really understand how crazy we are…
Mearsheimer assumes that China wants to be a Western-style hegemon. IT does not. It plans to lead by virtuous example: much cheaper and more enjoyable for everyone.
Agree
@John M Bruh, "appalling human rights record", tell me one country that doesn't have one. The US? France? UK? And if you think China is going to be aggressive... you are absolutely wrong... Which civilisation prides itself in building the longest wall in the world? Yeah...
Brother you are talking as if china is this spotless,good-intending,sin-less,faithful raising power...brother you are wrong...as ruthless the US is,China will be 200% lethal than the US...we are all in deep shit
@@paylesslimited4399 You have no proof, the Chinese civilisation invented the compass yet did not conquer land half way around the world, it invented gunpowder yet did not use it to good effect, and actual effective cannons and guns were introduced to China by the Europeans.
@@arminius8838 Thats useless brother..India invented everything...Egypt invented everything too...they havent killed anybody....Your point is dead already...The Chinese will be ruthless as their rulling system is dictated by one person Mr Autocratic Chairman of CCP....atleast western democratic liberal order something is debated on all government arms before it is implemented...Me a human being in Africa,my daily life and my fate can not be determined by one person unilaterally in Beijing...For example,using my freedom of expression,make a humorous cartoon of Xi Jingping mocking his wrong decisions on somethings,and it happens China is ruling the world like US now,CCP will come and kill me here in Africa with no question..for the US even if I say Fuck Trump,they understand the freedom....This illusion that China is innocent,reasonable raising power is very stupid and misguided brother....I can never buy that at all!
peoples mindset like john‘s make us understand why human someday will destroy themselves....
I can't make sure whether such kind of people is a fundamentalist christian, an average blindfolded enough, a munitions merchant, a racist, a war zealot or something else, very confused.
His arguments are deeply fallacious, but more than that he talks about international relations like it’s a comic book, and just some fun game he’s here to teach you how to play. Utterly bloodthirsty moral nihilist.
@@ghostofnodick900 Which of his arguments are fallacious?
I think John is a social democrat, he doesn’t want nation states to behave the way that they do, he doesn’t support United States troops being stationed outside of the United States, but his model of international relations has nothing to do with morality, it’s a predictive theory, and it’s generally accurate. You’ll never go bankrupt betting on the barbarism of the west
China doesn’t ask AUS to choose side, it only asks AUS to maintain neutral instead of siding with the US.
unfortunately US see it if Australia does not aside with the US, it is consider a betray, and there will be tragedy concequency.
I suspect America would consider Australia's current and historical position to be on the pro US side in any great power struggle. Neutrality is a change of position when viewed through that lens.
Normandie Viking CIA troll playing fear mongering games.
@@apersonfromtheinternet3444 ya right mr govt troll
Australia was one of the Allies in WWII that saved the world from darkness. They don't want to live under a totalitarian government, that's why they want to remain, as the woman said at the beginning, "under the umbrella" of the United States--so they don't get taken over by China. Tiananmen Square Massacre shows how good and kind the Chinese are.
US ia the head of war.
China the head of business.
Do war or business?
50 cent troll for Commie bandits
God bless China 🇨🇳✊✊✊✊✊
Is US Australian’s friend, and is China Australian’s customer? I think US is Australian’s BOSS! So boss or customer, you think you have a choice?! 🙄
America owns all of Australian largest businesses mining companies fuel stations and banks. Including shopping centres and many other. China is the largest single trading partner. Not Australia only trading partners. You people overseas are so nieve to know anything about Australia. Australia don't rely on China. Last year Australia GDP was only 1.4 trillion dollar. This year is 2 trillion dollars. If Australia so relying on China wouldn't you think our GDP would be much lower this year. Japan is Australia second largest trading partner. Now they are the first again. Australia has only been trading with China for a decade. We don't need their money to survive when we trade with the world also.
The US spilled blood for Australia and fought with them for 100 years. Do you want to be free men or vassals.
@@nathan-ck3je That is exactly what I’m saying. You have no choice, and I understand!
What never seems to be mentioned is that Australians like the US. Australian psychology is like something out of the 1950s US. Look at the media content an Australian sees from birth. The idea that Australians would ever fight with China against the US is ridiculous (and their impact in that regard would be zero).
"We (the US) have a rich history of doing horrible things in South and Central America". Looking at China's history, how likely is it that China will behave the same way if it becomes the regional hegemon?
Well China has dominated that region for thousands of years before the Europeans came and usurped that order in the last 300 years. Ofc everyone knows that China will be unquestionable regional hegemon. Many countries in the region prefer to be ruled by people who are closer to them ethnically and culturally.
Japan conquered all those European colonized countries like Indonesia and Malaysia easily because the local population preferred their rule over the Europeans.
This debate is really BS imo. As if US can do anything about it. USA literally cannot do shit about it. So this is not a question about IF but rather WHEN China seizes control of the region.
US is unable to stop any Chinese progress in the South China sea. Also another thing that goes in China;s favor is the US military airforce and navy, although big- they are overstretched and not concentrated in the region. They are all around the world guarding other places.
The Alliance against China in East Asia simply will not happen because US is unwilling to commit 100%. US wants those countries to fight China without US dirtying its hands. East Asians are not stupid like Chechens, Georgians and Ukrainians fighting Russia without Us direct involvement.
Countries like Philippines, India, Vietnam want literal alliance with USA, not empty promises and moral support in an eventual war. If they go at war with China- they would want USA to declare war on China too. Otherwise they wont commit to any "pinky swear" alliance.
USA, knows they cant go directly at war with China so all of these talks about forming anti- Chinese blocks is just hearsay... Not even Australia wants to commit 100% seeing its doubts and good trade deals with CHina.
@@robotube7361 A handful of nuclear attack subs can shut down China's economy. US vs. China is an easy win for the US.
@@robotube7361 The US economy is one of the least dependent on international trade in the world, with most of our trade being with Canada and Mexico. Chinese trade isn't that important to us. Personally, I'd rather we embargoed China just to encourage production and employment in the US.
@@ot23234 A war with China would NOT be an "easy win" Because if so the US would been had gone to war with China or at least eliminated Xi and replace him with some puppet like the US loves to do everywhere else. 🤣
@@klownking4835 Unfortunately it seems that some leaders in the US, including resident Biden, are in bed with the chinee. Those who mostly control the rulers in the West prefer for international trade to continue, as it profits them greatly.
If we get a President that puts the US first he'll likely take extra steps against China.
Spokesman for the military industrial complex. The same thing Eisenhower warned against. Comparing him and Kishore Mahbubani is like night and day.
Mearsheimer has opposed nearly every US war since 1991.
Let's put it this way. For China to reach the soil of Australia, China needs to pass over the South China Sea, Malaysia and Indonesia. That's a distance from Eastern China to Hawaii. When China never conquered or tried to conquer Malaysia or Indonesia all across history, why would China wants to occupy Australia, a far away strange continent itself. I just don't get the American professor's point that China is a security threat to Australia. Actually, India could be a potential threat to Australia considering that the only block between the two is the Indian ocean, no other nations inbetween.
India is a democracy. You can negotiate with a democracy. Negotiations with an autocracy can become very difficult. I'm not particularly concerned about India. China could become very scary.
whossname I don't believe in democracy. If China is a democracy with the system of popular votes, the first thing a democratic China would do is to conquer Taiwan with its military power, because most of Chinese do not have the patience with the Island's resistance to unite.
@@whossname4399 China is a democracy also if you look at it's real structure, just different. It seems to me China cares more for its people than my own country (the US) gives a damn for it's citizens.
Mr Mearsheimer's logic is if Australia do nothing to stop China's growth, Australia will be the USA's enemy and it will be dangerous to be the USA's enemy.
@@whossname4399 have u ever connected with any Indians in business or other fields? Do you know what are the final results of those investments from Japan, Korea and the USA? Before 1980, India has higher GDP and was more Hi-tech than China, how come they are much behind now? Luckily, China didnt invest infrastructure in India. There is a common saying in China " Even God and angels and fairies cannot earn any money from India." China can earn money from the poorest African small country but can't earn any from India. See how India "helps" the USA. Haha!
The containment of imperial Germany as Mearsheimer said, America could never have done alone, neither did they contain Hitler alone. But he describes America to a T.
"neither did they contain Hitler alone" USA did not 'contain' Hitler. USSR defeated Nazis.
Economic growth or security has to choose either one comes from the second speaker .His speech are based on his assumptions and that's evil . Western dominant because of greed and power savvy is scary to the world .
Mearsheimer continues to be proven correct.
In his own American dream.
This aged very well.
And so did your penis, Gerald.
Similar to how the West has continuously gotten China wrong for decades, the American professor seems to have very poor understanding of China’s capabilities and objectives. His assumption that China will be just like the US as a regional power is completely baseless and shows lack of deep understanding of the Chinese mindset. China is nothing like the US and does not have ambitions of imperializing and militarily policing the region like the US does the entire world. China has never invaded a foreign country since it officially became a modern nation. Nor have they acted militarily or politically aggressive towards Australia. The US is a declining global power who’s losing political influence all around the world, who does not have capable leadership and is too overextended in debt and foreign wars to be able to effectively contain China’s growth in Asia. Bottom line is that the US needs to accept the fact that China is going to be the other big political, economic power globally, and especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The world is big enough to support more than one global superpower and they need to learn how to coexist peacefully with China.
The American Professor Simon Hestie, thinks the Chinese behave like them, arrogant and globally ambitious.
Please remember China is only trying to protect itself against American interference.
Just imagine a Chinese military ship, circumventing the Californian coast. You will
shooting it and call it invasion. God forbids China or any Asian country to becomes a superpower,
bullying smaller countries. The Chinese has a military moral, being defensive and not offensive approach to
your enemies. China’s aim is to provide a stable society and peace for its people. Such she makes mistakes
but is very keen to learn from its mistakes.They know united they stand and divided that fall. The CIA madmen now the NED
Hopes to divide the minds of the people by meddling in Hong Kong.
There has never been a period in human history where multiple great powers "coexisted peacefully". At the end of the day either the US or China will remain as a global power, it might take decades, but it is inevitable. And if you are anywhere close to where either of those superpowers live you will have to pick a side. The only exception is if you are too small to matter, which Australia is not.
The US will seek to contain China and China will seek to throw the US out.
Uighur and Tibet is an example of Chinese invasion. Plus Chinese border disputes with India is still around and they already invade a part of Kashmir. They fight against India in 1960s and have eyes on some Japanese ıslands.
"China is nothing like the US and does not have ambitions of imperializing and militarily policing the region like the US does the entire world. China has never invaded a foreign country since it officially became a modern nation. Nor have they acted militarily or politically aggressive towards Australia."
... Yet.
If we let China become the regional hegemon, what will be stopping them from throwing their weight about and dominating their neighbors?
Mearsheimer is very good but he is now a cheerleader of the US. He fails to see reality.
The problem for Mearsheimer is not an aggressive China but a China not enough aggressive. China and its neighbors, even those who do not like China, do not want a in East Asia.
It’s called the American Dream.
I am Chinese Australian and fiercely loyal to Australiaa because Australia has given my family a woderful home after leaving Malaysia; and having said that I want it be known that my opinion seeks to frame an objective and as far as possible a detached point of view free of any bias to advance my home interests. If it is the objective of Australians to choose what is best for Australia then we should consider which competing country has the most advantage that will benefit selfishly the profit for Australia. 1st point we have to bear in mind is the increasing bond of friendship and partnership between Russia and China, eg in 2017 the trade between China and Russia did not pass the $1 billion mark, but last year (2018)the volume of trade came in at $108 billion and I can see in 2020 when Russia delivers Gas under the just completed "power of Siberia" pipeline to pass at least $200 plus billion. 2nd Point last week Russia and China has just completed the bridge connecting road and rail traffice between China's Dalian and Russia's Siberia. 3rd point, to win the China soybean market Putin has agreed to give China's soybean 2.5 million acres of land for growing soybean. 4th point China "if you slap China on the left cheek, China will slap you back on the right cheek. What si the point that I want to make from these 4 points? If Australia chooses the USA, then China will choose Russia to source China's need for raw material and Russia is just too ready and all set to replace Australia as China's supplier !
There is yet the more important and contentious development, the reality of China's Belt & Road initiative, and after 5 years of development China has 124 countries join the venture and $1.4trillion contracts in hand. The success of this project is already assured, therefore the "head-room" for China expansion and further growth in "limitless", whereas the economy of the USA has "tanked" and will likely crash towards a runaway hyper-inflation. This is not speculation, the facts already exist on the ground.
Loved reading your comment. I did not know Russia is giving China 2.5 million acres for soybeans. Wow. Well said.
Yes totally with you that China can easily choose other suppliers. But most Australians want to demonise China and side with America regardless. They won't understand the implications until export trade with China is completely lost.
@@rf9164 America has been Australia's ally in every way. China has never been Australia's ally in any war.
R F you are right. Australia may have a recession in the near future.
@@halfmoon106 .....Yeah, good point.
Now ask yourself in all those wars with the declining US empire, how many did they WIN.
What happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan?
So you're backing fucking LOSERS!!
Good luck for the future pal!
Despite Pr Mearsheimer's compelling enthusiasm about the US being able to successfully intervene in South East Asia by creating an Alliance, I tend to agree with Pr White that this is doomed to failure because such an alliance will be based on extremely fragile coalition of countries with 1) different political systems 2) different culture 3) different ethnicities 4) different religions 5) different military objectives 6) vast geographical separation. Previous US attempts to create such Asian coalition have failed. Obama "Asia Pivot" is such an example. Philippe's Duterte swings like a pendulum from US to China and back. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in Pr Mearsheime'rs view that "States consider their national interest first and foremost" when making decision when we compare his position on the US foreign policy towards Israel where he asserts that the US policies towards Israel are deeply influenced by the so called Israel lobby and such decisions are contrary to US national interests.
100% agree. White made an excellent point when he said that it doesnt matter what US says, but more importantly what they do. USA ofc is supportive and has the best words and tells all these countries everything what they want to hear. But, in reality, US does not show any signs of true dedication when it comes to forming a trusting alliance.
The strategy here is clear to every party. USA wants to spur all these countries against China so they can all fight China will US sits back and watch both its potential rivals China and India in a deathmatch. They did the same with the USSR and Nazi Germany and the British Empire. They stood aside, watched the British Empire getting wrecked, the USSR invaded and decided to react only when they were attacked directly.
Mind you: US didnt declare war on Hitler first. It was Hitler who did it. Also US waited until 1944 to send troops in Europe.
They did the same in WW1. They stood aside watched all their rivals fight eachother while not committing for 2 years, just sending provisions to keep the conflict ongoing.
India knows these lessons too well and this is why India will not join US ever and will continue to buy weapons from Russia and continue to have trade deals with China. The Japanese and Koreans literally have no teeth nor any capabilities. All Eastern Asia has deep trading ties with China and they certainly wouldnt want this prosperity to be jeopardized because US doesnt like the prosperity of China.
I mean even an Anglo Saxon nation that should be a natural unquestionable ally to USA has doubts, yet alone Asian countries that are more similar to China culturally and ethnically.
The thing is US desperately tries to cause a war on China's doorstep, just like it is trying to do the same with Russia, but nobody is taking the bait without certain guarantees that US will commit 100%.
That is the problem. US DOES NOT WANT TO COMMIT. They want others to die for their interests. Im glad nobody is buying into it.
Also another big difference between China and USA is China is doing everything in its power to act trustworthy as much as their interests allow them when it comes to establishing partnerships with other countries while USA has proven to be very untrustworthy partner. its far from saying that China is very trustworthy itself, but at least they dont make empty promises. They dont do much but one can be 100% sure if they say they will commit- they will.
This is how China has been able to penetrate so deeply into the Western world with their investments. They are reliable. Its no secret. They do deliver. Nobody ever complained that the Chinese are bad businessmen.
Americans on the other hand, well we all know the WMD fiasco in Iraq.
I just wanted to add to what you already said these several other reasons why nobody will ever commit to an anti - Chinese East Asian alliance. Its a pipe dream.
I think everyone knows this very well. Americans, however will do their best Im sure to convince others but I all educated guesses point out they are gonna lose this one.
China is something the world have never seen in the last 200 years. If you tell someone that is from the year 1700 about this situation- they will laugh at you about anyone having any chances with the Chinese.
@@robotube7361 thank you this well written response…. And what do you make of AUKUS.?
INCREDIBLE RIGHT AT ALL...MR. JOHN IS NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN AN UNREALISTIC THINKER (THE OPPOSITE WHAT HE DEFINE HE HIMSELF ), AND AT THE END WITH VERY DANGEROUS IDEOLOGY BASE IN THE PAST CENTURIES BUT WITHOUT ANY CLUE ABOUT THE DILLEMAS THAT THE ENTIRE HUMANITY WILL CONFRONT IN THE FUTURE (CLIMATE CHANGE AND MANY MORE QUESTIONS ), PERSISTING IN A CONFRONTATION AS SOLUTION...THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE AND REALLY STUPID.THE WORLD NEED COOPERATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE .
A great debate, except for the ridiculous apparition of a Falun Gong practitioner at the end.
Prof Mearsheimer has been brutally realistic with "you're either with us or you're enemy" statement. I've always respected him. I can not debate that but can only hope that he is wrong about China, that there might be other possible models of great power politics, other than the American way.
For one thing, even if China would seek its own version of Monroe Doctrine, it would have to be drastically different from the American one, simply because China's geopolitical location within the Eurasian continent is totally different from that of North America (Canada, Mexico, fish and more fish).
Would it be not possible if China find in a multipolar balance against US's unipolar hegemony a more realistic option than an old US style of regional hegemony in East Asia?
Why would it be the fate of human societies that democracies can only survive under a hegemonic world order?
Would that be the only way for Australians (and other Asian nations) to walk out of their haunting nightmares?
To be honest, I was surprised about US policy, saying the global politics is a zero game. I don’t agree that. At least recently Singapore has made it clear that SG will not pick side.
Great comment and necessary optimism.
Totally agree. There are an infinite number of destructive outcomes and hypothesis endlessly about potentially unhelpful motivations risks offending the very people you are trying to build a bond with. I think John competent missed the ball on the Chinese fellows question. It's extremely important to build cultural bonds. For instance later John says the Chinese are not sophisticated at use of soft power, a common lamentation of the west. But they are playing catchup with their populations quality of life index, and that pushes their laws to be harsh and possibly necessitates them to be out of sync with their own morality which might be an awkward truth that is not so hard to understand but is rarely mentioned to give context, as rice farming culture. So how do we move closer together is the question. And I don't have the answers. But cultural immersion is one key. I hand it to the Chinese expats in America and the American expats in China, hats off to you. And everybody just calm down and yes be optimistic. There are 1000 ways to smash a beautiful piece of glass but it is much harder to shape it so.
Why Austrilia should go with US in security concern? what is the benifit? so austrilian can go to war to Syria, Lybia, Iraq, Iran??
typical american actually threatening Australians to get them to side with the US... So petty and such bullies
Yes, John Mearsheimer seems to not understand that the USSR was not a country. Shows his ignorance. Moreover, if the USSR was a country then it would be called Russia. Sorry, John, Russia is hardly defeated and is even stronger militarily than the USSR was. I might add they can, if pushed, blow you to bits!. How then have you beaten the USSR/Russia????
The US records in Asia stands own record: FAILURE, Vietnam, Korea, China, Myanmar etc. Not to mention the recent failures in Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, even the failure of the coup in Turkey.
So John is saying that nuclear war between China and America is inevitable. So for Australia in order not to be hit harder than it would be (see US bases in Australia that will be hit), Australia's best policy to save her people is to "DECLARE NEUTRALITY". If Not, then we are all toast!
John Mearsheimer is, in fact, threatening Australians. We are NASTY, do not follow us and we will hurt you! Not a friend but a bully as the world all know the US is today. You heard it from the horse's mouth! So John just shut up and keep your US flag where the sun doesn't shine war mongering pig!
If a nuke war were to be initiated, half of the humanity will be burned to ashes before the war even started. American still living in the 1940's trying to flash around his military capabilities around the world like a 90 years old gangster trying go onto the street again with his gun.
He means that US won the cold war with USSR by disassembling USSR.
Both Mearsheimer and Hugh White are real gentlemen and they spoke honestly of what was in their minds. They are men of integrity and patriotic to their own nations. The same cannot be said of that Chinese lady Anastasia Lin who seemed to work for rewards.
She is not Chinese! She is a traitor to our ethnicity and all 1.4 billion of us denounce such a lowly human being!
Be kind. She needed the money for her nose job, for which she didn't get her money's worth. She probably needs the money for a second corrective one. Her face is incredibly plastic as are her allegiances.
Absolutely agree.
They are neocons, warmongers.
Heard some audiences laughing, around 26:00 to 28:00. How can anyone with dignity feel funny when threatened like this?
They were laughing at a idiot.
Ask the Hong Kong people fascist.
July 2020: Mearsheimer's theory is playing itself out. I think his only weakness is his frankness to a gentile audience, especially concerning Australian economic prosperity. The Australians can find other customers in the region for their raw materials and ag products. No need to frighten them with the heavy hand of great powers with regards to economic prosperity. But at least he sticks to his expertise in geopolitics when he extrapolates on things like economic intercourse.
Although it doesn't matter, Australia cannot find other customers for raw materials and ag products. Alright, they can, but in a far less volume.
Dumb ass. Where? In mars!
@@warso-spt1 Yes, in Mars, according to those dumb assies.
The US is committed to the policy of staying the unipolar power at the expense of the rest.😂
that US professor is using the typical US way of thinging to predict or interpret China's move, no wander they are losing. China dose not forcefully impose their agenda to other nations, on the other hands, US always force other nations to accept their agendas regardless the sovereignty of other nations. even in this so call discussion, the US prof is not thinking about Australia's interest but US's interest.
China will 3 times more forcefully impose agenda to other nations Once china gained self confident.
Don't make hollow assumptions and over draft other peoples trust, otherwise I will do the same to you.
Ohhh bullshit.
As soon as China see's that it will be able to impose it's will on other nations, without interference, IT WILL.
China is communist to the core and is built on coercion, corruption and the use of force to achieve their ends.
You might think the US is bad, but a world ruled by communists will be hell on earth.
This video is filled with Chinese bots. Damn they breed like crazy
A lot of comments from people who are mad that Mearsheimer states how things are, the world is violent and chaotic, this is how it works. When worst comes to worst, states always take the realist approach.
Can not speak for the rest of the world, however this IS the Condition Yuri Bezmenov speaks to sooooo CLEARLY. People getting mad at the Truth. Social Media proves this to be a Worldwide Issue.🎓💯
“📣📣Bezmenov: Because they know too much. Simply because, you see, the useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get dis-illusioned they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made a point, never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. This was my instruction-try to get into large circulation established conservative media. Reach movie makers, intellectuals, so called academic circles, cynical egocentric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie. This are the most recruit-able people, people who lack moral principles, who are either too greedy or suffer from self-importance. They feel that they matter a lot. These are the people KGB wanted very much to recruit.
So, basically, America is stuck with the demoralization unless, even if you start right now here this minute, you start educating huge generation of Americans, it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.
Most of the American politicians, media and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living at the peace time. False. The United States is in a state of war. Undeclared total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not comrade Andropov, of course, it’s the system, however ridiculous it may sound, the world communist system, or the world communist conspiracy. Whether it scares some people or not I don’t give a hoot. If you’re not scared by now, nothing can scare you.
But you don’t have to be paranoid about it. What actually happens now that unlike myself, you have literally several years to live on unless the United States wake up. The time bomb is ticking. Every second, the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it. This is the last country of freedom and possibility.
Griffin : Ok, so, what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?
Bezmenov : Well, the immediate thing that comes to my mind is of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of real patriotism, one. Number two, to explain the real danger of socialist communist whatever, welfare state, big brother government. If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help the United States, you must kiss goodbye to your freedoms, including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison inmate, all this freedom will vanish. It will evaporate in five seconds including your precious lives. The second thing, the moment, at least part of the United States population is convinced that the danger is real. They have to force their Government, and I’m not talking about sending letters, signing petitions and all this beautiful noble activity. I’m talking about forcing United States Government to stop aiding communism.”
@@jshroud Bezmenov was your typical Soviet dissident who's relevance was based on his criticism of communism and the Soviet state. However, the idea that patriotism and nationalism is what we used to have in the US versus "demoralization" that we have today is not necessarily true. And the fantasy that we are headed towards being a socialist welfare state is a myth in itself. Post ww2 America spent far more on infrastructure and overall public welfare in proportion to GDP than the US does today. All of these increases in spending on things that benefit the public have been followed by economic booms. Government intervention in the market has always ended up increasing competition and lowering prices, while conservative economics and policies has created a state with crumbling infrastructure and even less cooperation with our allies. The left in the US are definitely not Communist sympathizers, that is a McCarthyistic myth that somehow has gained steam again in the 21st century despite the numbers not existing to back up the accusation. It wasn't true during the cold war, and it isn't true now. It was nothing more than a way for conservatives such as McCarthy to target and discredit political opponents who had no history of communist ties. He tried to accuse Dean Acheson of being a homosexual and thus a communist while in reality he was neither. American nationalism leads to populism which creates an easy target for foreign propaganda, look at the sources of most right-wing "alternative" news outlets. One of the biggest is NTD which is a Chinese anti-communist religious movement that has a huge hold on rightwing digital media and is referenced by other outlets which usually have the word "patriot" or "conservative" in their titles. The Russian government overwhelmingly preferred Trump and conservatives to Biden, just watch RT for a couple days and it is quite obvious, and look at how many conservative outlets cite RT articles to discredit democrat opposition. The Soviet Union used nationalism and patriotism as a way to control the population in their police state, Bezmenov was literally a foreign agent who is routinely cited by Conservatives to undermine the left in the US. Why? Because those who are easiest to control will believe in anything that supports their existing beliefs.
@@coffelt683 That’s a lot to unpack.💨😮💨 “The Soviet Union used nationalism and patriotism as a way to control…….”. ☝🏾EVERY single Nation that wants to exist as a Nation, especially as a Strong, Independent Nation, uses Patriotism and Nationalism. Indeed, without these Concepts being used extensively and judiciously, there WOULD BE NO NATION.👎🏾These concepts are part of how Nations are formed, survive, grow and prosper.👀
I would also put forth that MANY people, regardless of Ideology, are embracing more Communistic Ideas and Principles and are aided by the Chinese Strategy of “Pimping” out the rest of the world. I believe many people do not consciously THINK they are embracing Communism, yet much anecdotal and direct evidence PROVES many are doing as much.💯💯
China, meaning the Communist Party, is simply attempting to take advantage of HUMAN NATURE. GREED would be a major component that is obvious to anyone at this point. Going back to before Obama, AMERICAN companies were begging the U.S. government to intervene because China is “Stealing” intellectual property and many other grievances, while still doing Business with China for the M-O-N-E-Y and refusing to Voluntarily pull out of China. Hmmmm, much like Industry leaving America for China and the collapse of the Industrial middle-class that Biden’s predecessor P-R-O-M-I-S-E-D to bring back to the United States.😐
Strong Nations were and are built on much more than “Sugar, Spice and everything Nice”. The United States has a long history of WAR in its relatively short time of existence. War is a REALITY of nation building. COWARDICE is also a R-E-A-L-I-T-Y before, during and after nations actually engage in Armed Conflict. “Intellectual Cowardice” as I call it, the practice of doing and engaging in POLICY, RULES, REGULATIONS and LAWS that would lead to war and then trying to rationalize SENDING OTHERS to fight in Y-O-U-R place when such Armed Conflict is unavoidable, is a MAJOR REASON OUR DEMOCRACY IS IN PERIL.🤗 ⬅️THAT PART🚨
Make no mistake, Male, Female, Other🤣, Republican, Democrat, Libertine, Progressive…..we are all infected to some degree. The U.S. is about to have surgery to remove a Malignant Growth, a number of Cancerous Cells.🎓💯
Question is, are you one of those Cancerous Cells!?🙃
How does the U.S. pinpoint these Cancerous Cells?🤔
Do we keep the Cancerous Cells for study or dispose of them?🧐
Yes and the realist approach is to accept things for what it is. The US is FINISHED! 😆
@@klownking4835 Honestly I have changed my mind on China in the past 2-3 years. Xi has made China drastically less respected on the world stage and did nothing to try and reign in the predictable debt crisis which is starting to collapse. Chinas growing middle class has made production more expensive, meaning that their main attraction of cheap labor is becoming less and less applicable. And their increasingly bleak human rights record is scaring a lot of influential non-state actors and organizations. It has become clear the Xi has not followed previously established CCP standards, and his constitutional changes have paved the way for making the country even more authoritarian.
Historically China had been a dominant but peaceful civilization, and is expected to resume that role. Mr.Mearsheimer does not understand China who had declared it does not aspire to be a hegemon, and is prudent enough to rise peacefully past US in Asia. Australia will eventually engage more with China than with America which is a declining power, although it'll be an awkward adjustment process. Mearsheimer is an American imperialist thinker, is off base.
Disagreed . China conquered all the plains which is why China is huge throughout history. The only place that stop China for future expansion is desert in the north, to the west dense forest in Vietnam and Himalayan near Tibet , south is ocean . And in the ancient time logistics is a costly nightmare
@@jiahao485 absolutely fact and truth. Thousands years of dynastic history , each dynasdy started with wars & violence, ended with wars & violence. Classical expansionist.
The claim "China has always been peaceful nation" is typical CCP propaganda that brainwashes many.
@@jiahao485 When China was on top of the world, being the richest and the most powerful country in the world when Europe was still in Dark age, it never colonized any neibouring countries, and had been living peacefully with its biggest neibour India for Thousands of years until Angelo Saxon came.
Anglo Saxon invaded nearly all countries in the world, so don't project them onto China! Twisting China''s history, including that of many other non western countries, demonizing China's culture, including that of many other non western countries and condescending all other non white races, including Chinese, badmouthing China and ill interpretering everything about China, spreading lies about China.... are what Anglo-Saxon medias and haters like you are doing, you should feel shame of yourself as such a low quality human being!
Listening to these Angelo Saxon elites talking, the so called Western value of human right, equality and freedom are all BS in their eyes, or these value ONLY serve for Angelo Saxon people! What is aggression? What is coerce? Who is Nazi? Didn't these white "gentlemen" provide us a perfact lesson?
China is the one who buying most of Australias goods，thats just the fact，the better China will be，the more Australia goods China can buy，the better Australia will be too，you cant ask US to buy most of your goods，thats just the fact
Explain this security vs properity logic to me: If Canberra sides with Beijing and China dominates East Asia, what security issues will Australia face? Even if China becomes a big bully like the US, Australia will not be any worse off. But if Australia sides with the US and China fails to dominate East Asia, Australia loses its biggest customer and trader partner, while the US is still a big bully. How is this a choice?
Good point 👍👍👍
John explained this; aus sides with China and China wins, aus sovereignty gets clattered like Central America has with u.s
This guy talks like a imperialist!
Realist. The US has no colonies.
He talks abouth what really happen, no what he wish would happen. So silly commentary of you
@@darbyheavey406look at the legal structure that subjugates the militaries of Japan and Sk under US indopacom, as well as Wall St owning majority and controlling shares in all the G7's banks and major firms. Think again. It's called neocolonialism.
What's the reward for AUS to fight a war with CHN considering CHN is AUS's biggest customer?
Continuing Prosperity, the Assies hope.
this needs to be btoadcast across australia on free to air tv several times and must be shown in senior schools and unis. We need to open our eyes and see clearly what we are getting ourseleves into. Great talks and great questions from audience and moderator alike.
Prof Mearsheimer's confident view of US power was stated more than two years ago. What Mear did not consider beyond US strengths were its serious deficiencies: the intelligence and integrity of its ruling-class. US leaders make serious mistakes in policy-making. US leaders serve a very greedy and thoughtless constituency. The developments since Mear's address prove I am correct. A major development of this sort is the wedding of Russia and China. That was promoted since February 2014 by the stupidity and greed of the Neocons within the ruling-class, such as Victoria Nuland, who helped instigate the effort, along with the British, the Poles, the Balts and others to bring Ukraine in due course into NATO. As a result of unending rejection, Russia, which wanted to be part of western Europe, now is joined with China! The two together are now the biggest guys on the block that Mear remembers from his boyhood in NYC.
The incompetence is so great that the ruling class in USA has no other expert on foreign policy than Henry Kissinger, a 90 yr man. The ruling class of USA has become decadent, hedonistic, self serving and utterly blind about the developments in international affairs.
They miscalculated Putin's response 100%. They are so behind the times they think they are dealing with the same Russia from 1994. They thought they could just grab Ukraine and blackmail Putin for concessions.
Its incredible how much power is concentrated in the hands of literal idiots. They are so incompetent the Russians even recorded their phone calls. Im sure you know about Nuland's call to the American ambassador in Ukraine, where they discuss who to put in power. Its embarrassing.
Russia never wanted to be part of Western Europe btw, and neither the West could ever allow this for 2 simple reasons. Russia is a major power with its own independent interests which literally are being denied by the West in the last 300 years.
Russia literally cannot be part of the West because Russia holds 1/7th of the Earth's landmass and every known resource known to man is found in abundance on its territory. Russia is, by a large margin the richest country in natural resources in the world and this has greatly worried the Western economies for centuries literally. Russia, if given an open unchallenged access to the world oceans, can literally crash the world's economic order by simply overflowing the world with cheap resources making it the richest country in a matter of few decades. The West, Starting with the BRitish and the French Empire, has been fighting Russia tooth and nail so they wont get warm water port access anywhere. Russia has no warm water port which means Russia has no economically viable way to transport its resources.
So you see, Russia's interests are diametrically opposite with those of the West. The West can never allow Russia full access to its markets and this is why Russia has been pushed aside for so long. This is something that has to be done from geostrategical point of view. I mean, its scary to think that Russia can literally overflow the market with not just their own raw resources, but their own products made in Russia. It is scary enough as it is just them exporting gas and oil. Mind you they have even diamonds more than South Africa. Russia is deliberately held isolated.
Their "marriage" with China is just a natural way of them crossing the barrier and entering the Chinese market.
Russia is just very very important to both China and USA. But mind you - Russia is not there to serve either. This is why dealing with Russia has always been difficult.
Both China and the West want them to be their junior partners and Russia wont accept that role ever.
So they are certainly not in marriage with China but more like being friends with benefits. The first moment when Russia and China's interests dont align- Russia wil bail out and continue their own policy. So far both are interested in grinding down USA because Russia wants its power in Eastern Europe and Central Asia back and China wants Eastern Asia back.
In
John asserts that trade with China continues after Australia cements further its alliance with the US. He also states here and elsewhere that the US Cold War with China had already started. What he didn’t say is that the drop of two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities first signaled intentions towards the Soviet Union. This was followed by economic wall built to suppress the economic rise of the Soviet Union, signalled the parting shot for the first Cold War were the speeches by Churchill and Truman about an Iron Curtain. The former was a tragic attempt at frightening the Soviet Union. The US can’t compete locally with China in manufacturing unless it massively increases productivity on the assembly line. It will not attempt to build another country’s manufacturing prowess to fill the gap. According to historical precedent, China’s economy will have to be gutted. That is what a Cold War will produce. we are already seeing heavy sanctions against Russia and peripheral states that are adamant on keeping their sovereignty. This war with China could leave both countries badly bruised. Giving the opportunity for a third per to gain an advantage.
Australia’s choice isn’t going to be simple. The best outcome is for the US to double down on bringing back a competitive manufacturing base. That investment will require a scaling down of its international commitments to allies. Measheimer often states how expensive the Iraq/Afghanistan adventures were. the China/Russia adventure is going to be even more expensive. As things stand now, the US's belligerent position is not certain and Trump is being bolstered by part of the blob that sees this problem.
Australia needs to diversify its alliances. Not just China, the US and UK but also Russia, India and Japan. This seems to be a strategy many countries are feebly trying to engage with like immediate success.
We do not need a domestic manufacturing base....We just need one that isn't in our peer competitor and that can be maintained easily during a war. Have a whole hemisphere
@@ericm4658 Operation Condor failed. Mexico doesn't want to be your sweatshop.
@@elmersbalm5219 77% of their economy is involved in American trade so if that's true, which it may be. They have done a terrible job.
Next stop Central America
Australia is doing really well in the Pacific against China. The Deputy PM just called Pacific people "fruit pickers" and the arrogant buffoon Morrison upset everyone. So PRC is not good at soft power. Australian racists are worse. LOL
Thirty per cent of our exports go to China and Mershiemer says we must choose. OK lets accept that. Then he tells us what the choice must be. That's not choosing. We are being dictated to. And by the way we lose about 500, 000 jobs and our economy tanks. We lets choose. Fuck off America.
China is the most racist country in the world.
The US has no problem using Australia as a pawn in their cynical geopolitical game. If Australia is obliterated and sacrificed, so be it... The sooner Australians realize this, the better off they’ll be...
If that was true, we would have allowed Japan to invade Australia and when they did then we would have hit Japan. Makes more sense if you think of it like that, in fact I might have done that. Why swing down and block the invasion plans.
Be that as it may, rest assured that neither China nor USA has plans to invade or bomb Australia. No matter what side you pick, you will not see any action on your land. There is value in it between two great powers, they would go right for the heart of each other.
As opposed to the Chinese angels, haha.
I think in reality, however cynical the foreign policy establishment is, the demos of the Anglosphere are so culturally connected that the politicians wouldn't get away with it unless it was a survival decision.
1942 you ahistorical pos. 1942...
@@QuizmasterLaw Please be more explicit: what exactly about 1942?
@@nickshelbourne4426 Who saved your bacon back when the King in Britain was getting his ass kicked hm?
Huge White is smart. US is withdrawing. Australia has to establish its own armed force and make independent decisions. Standing neutral won’t make US embarassing.
Learn from history. China is saying this is a global village, we need to work together, be mutual beneficial and mutually prosperous. The world is going to change towards that direction. The economic system, the monetary system, the marketing and trades would be changing. The US confused himself and everybody else because of its programs to liberate the world. John is not a honest academic, if we follow his argument, the rest of the non western world must side China? British fell, it is time US to fall and it is her own choosing, do not blame others for it.
Australia can play the role, a very big role, to be the "link" between America and China. Why think of war? Think of peace. Think of cooperation and mutual gains. Otherwise Australia will get crush even before any war breaks out!
But unfortunately that's not going to work because the US is hell bent on containing China.
@@jamesz80 we build chinatowns everywhere. it won't work to contain china
Lee, you need to think Realistic….. Not what would be Nice or Good, or what “should be” but instead facing the facts that are present and what is realistic to happen. Day dreaming isn’t gonna solve anything. I realize it’s alluring but it certainly will not bear fruit , that’s for sure.
"You are either with us or you are our enemies"
Are you sure this is democratic not dictatorship talking?
us thugs
John is a great American Scholar, but one problem he has is that his belief based on an assumption that Chinese will think the same way as the American in regard to the willingness to become a hegemony and how it will behave if that become true. However, it might be wrong. China is a country that built the Great Wall at the height of its power, the biggest defensive project on the planet 2000 years ago, which shows that it had a culture not aggressive as US when it has power.
25:00
Is that a directly threat to Australia to side with USA?
Nope. Australia is a member of five eyes.
yes. from the very begining of his speech.
He flat out said, if you’re not with us, your against - an enemy of the US. He has been full of threats.
28:00 his threat was so frighteningly clear!
He's not making threats, he's explaining the way it's seen from the view of the US.
He's not got the authority to make threats.
AUZ - Do the Americans’ do, don’t do the Americans’ say, see how many American companies are doing business in China.
Here's where Mearsheimer's fallacy reveals itself. The choice is 1) support the US by acting aggressively to contain China that will ensure China's animosity, or 2) Not supporting the US in this provocative containment policy. Mearsheimer says the US will lean on Australia in this second case, true, but refusal to accede to American demand on this issue (or going neutral) is insufficient to cause America to directly attack Australia in open warfare. On the other hand, if Australia does follow American anti-Chinese containment policy, this is an actively hostile action that can easily lead to open warfare between China and Australia. Embargoes are an act of war. So think carefully. China was a friendly trading state before the recent provocations by Australia acting on US demand. Do you really want a war with China in the pacific? What's wrong with being neutral and continuing to trade with whoever you want? Do you think China would insanely attack Australia in that situation? Or America would dare to attack Australia for neutrality? Who in the world has been attacked for following a policy of neutrality? Certainly not Switzerland! This is a false choice that Mearsheimer makes when he automatically assumes that a hegemonic China is bad for Australia. For the past 30 years, it seems Australia has done very well on China's growth has it not?
If it comes to that the Americans will just engineer a coup in Australia. They've been accused of doing it in the 1970s before, and they've certainly done it in other places, or so says John Bolton.
People in the comments dont seem to realise mearsheimers premise is merely how structural realism works...
I love how the commenters here thinks Mearsheimer is some kind of a warmonger who came down to threaten Australia, seeing him as someone who's some kind of a decisionmaker in the US foreign policymaking process. Yeah, sure, its not like he has opposed like, 95% of US military interventions since the end of the Cold War...
This debate was posted 2 years ago. Wonder what they think now that China and Russia have formed an alliance (both militarily and economically). The point of the UN was so that all nations come together and agree on a set of rules that are fair and all will follow. It's good that China and Russia are working together to balance the bullying from the US.
@@globalforce It's a good sign that yuo can ignore them. Mearsheimer has opposed nearly every war since 1991 (he supported Gulf War I), yet he's a warmonger issuing "threats". He can't "threaten" Australia because he's not the president. he's just making a prediction.
When John Mearsheimer talked about the US taking out four peer competitors, he should have mentioned a fifth -- the British Empire. Or was he thinking that Churchill did it all by himself?
What do you mean by that? I’m not familiar with any US role in the decline of the British Empire. Certainly not on the scale of the US role in the decline of say the USSR.
Britain took itself out by fighting two world wars that bankrupted it. Of course when the British Empire was weak the USA made sure to finish it off.
@@lutherblissett9070 It wasn’t helped by the duplicitous behaviour of America that came in late in both world wars and emerged the richest country in the world. America didn’t suffer any economic downturn in spite of being in both world wars the same as Britain. Britain paid the heaviest price by bearing the brunt of both wars. Henry Kissinger famously said “ To be an enemy of America is dangerous, to be a friend is fatal “. In spite of America taking the moral high ground and projecting itself like in Hollywood films as the saviour of mankind a brief look at its violent history shows it is in no way able able to criticise China or anyone else. I am sick of giving verifiable examples on here so I will leave it to you to follow it up if you so wish.
China will NEVER force anybody to Choose... it is All in your head John. Other countries are Not forced to choose... Singapore stand neutral. All need to exercise Wisdom.
Many small states in this world , Kiwi included, can chart their own paths with pride and dignity into the future without needing to allies with any great power, in particula,r a notoriously war-monger one . why can't Australia ?
I am enjoying watch the balance of power play out. Nice huge kick in the arse for US totalitarianism and exceptionalism
Is there anyone that see through this American politician is threatening Australia? Looks like America is the big bully here.🤣🤣🤣🤣
This aged like a very fine wine 🍷
John, I respect you as a professor and your old fashioned view of the world. Your view might be right during the Cold War but not working for now.
John please consider to retire asap. The world do NOT need “ containment “ or war. World need peace and communication between people!
will china intend to conqure austrilia? what's the security issue?
Of course not. Westerners assume China would behave like themselves or like the way Soviet Union behaved just because of their shared political system (governed by the Communist Party). This is of course shallow and ignorant way of looking at China, as China is simply not Soviet Union and the Chinese culture is very different from that of Russia.
It is not about what he says it is about the "dollar" as the world reserve currency and the spoils that go with that.
The only problem is interest to service the debt will become so much that the USA will implode and there will be absolutely nothing the USA will be able to do about that.
China owns about 25% of USA debt and if they were to call the debt the USA has major problems.
The US owes China USD 1.1 trillion or 4% of US debt. The Eurocurrency market trades the equivalent in a day. The World bond market is worth USD 100 trillion. I assume repayment would be scheduled and repayment not at call.
The US is going to inflated its way out of that debt, already the Debt holders have lost 10% to inflation just this year alone.
@@tommyodonovan3883 I think you will find it is somewhat more... The end aim is to bankrupt the middle and lower class.
Here is a clue... Carona Virus = Virus of the Crown... Which Crown? English Crown Foreign occupation of land and to bring under Rome's Control.
Damn! Mearsheimer just threatened the Ausies in their own country! That's what you call American balls of steele!
How can someone be so arrogant at this age ?
An American!!
What one you talking about
protip : australia is only a small pawn(for the US) and meant nothing in the overall picture.
Listening to John, Australia is in a hard place. It sounds like America is threatening it, if I can't have you no one else will.
He doesn't seem to understand that China can find other suppliers for Australian products if Australia is hostile to China, thereby greatly reducing its gdp.
China depends on Australian uranium.
You certainly don't understand that Australia can find other customers as US companies move out of China.
The population of existing customers such as Japan and Korea, plus coming customers of India, Indonesia, Bangladesh... are nearly 3 times greater than China. Aussie products will be double up price every year as long as demands.
The very surmise that the USA will still have the same friends as currently are but a dream.
Dit ook nou net uitgespel. Groete.
Why is that America like to talk about China so much.... we just want to do business....
If Australia leans towards USA, Australia will be just like Cuba, relying on a distant superpower to fight a nearby superpower.
Yes, But Cuba outlasted 11 US presidents.
No. it will be the other way round. The US owns majority of Australia largest businesses including our banks. Commonwealth bank ANZ bank. National Australia bank. Suncorp metway bank. Bendigo Bank. bank of Melbourne. Rio Tinto mining corporation. Woolworth and many others. All Owned by majority of US investors. Losing a major trading partner hurts. But imagine losing our largest businesses we won't even have a centrelink to give us benefits.. you can see why Australia has no other choice but to back the USA. We can't trade at all if we have no businesses left to trade with. Guns is pointed at our heads. We've been ask to choose a side. We can't even go neutral as neither of them will let us. Australia can't afford to lose our business. We can always get trade with others...Australia has been blackmailed by both of them we are screwed
@@nathan-ck3je you've been blackmailed by 1. The other only wants to trade and not get bullied.
@@nathan-ck3je The owners of those companies would either sell off at a knockdown price or lobby the US govt to allow them to keep doing business. Chinese trade is sending money into Australia in exchange for raw materials while those American owners are simply sucking money out of the country.
the second speaker makes me sick. Many Chinese pro-us intellectuals should watch this.
@jay stupid
tliggeled
_All_ Chinese intellectuals should watch it and stop _moralizing_ the discourse.
If China wants to come out on top of the US it needs to think about, _how_ . Regional hegemony is not something 'found in the gutter', but the result of sophisticated diplomacy and national effort - challenging the 'status quo' requires nerves.
@Wayne Haile
"China isn't trustworthy either."
That is correct in the sense that China will pursue it's *national* *interest* - but who in his right mind would confuse *nation* *states* with _'trustworthy_ _individuals'_ ?
China has the better track record though when it comes to colonization, imperialism and slave trade (building US railroads) in the region - while the benefits of associating with China became clear in the financial crisis of 1997 and 2008, not to speak of the *Asian* *Infrastructure* *Investment* *Bank* , offering an _alternative_ to the 'Washington Consensus', enforced by the the US controlled 'World Bank'.
If You are disgruntled with the way Chinese do business in Australia during a _boom_ then _brace_ Yourself for the moment when Australia's trade with China will _shrink_ _significantly_ , no doubt 'happy times' for low income consumers that will have to do with the pricing of Western products and services...
@Wayne Haile
Since You replied _politely_ and _rationally_ here, I'll ignore Your 'foreign' syntax.
I agree with the premises of Your argumentation that 'Australia is caught in crossfire', but You seem to forget that Hugh White's suggestion of neutrality depends _entirely_ on the assumption that the US will _not_ pursue a policy of 'rollback' in regard to China's increasing influence. Mearsheimer refutes that assumption _energetically_ - and considering the election of Donald Trump by _half_ the US electorate, I tend to deem it plausible. The US hasn't turned itself into a military state for decades to let it's hegemony just slide - and neutrality (possibly including cutting ties with the British Commonwealth) would not be sufficient for Australia, it would have to carry the burdens of thermo-nuclear arms to deter a possible US attack (while China can be quite content with a neutral Australia).
Nuclear proliferation is the one thing, all 'great powers' agree upon: "not, if we can help it!" (bombing of nuclear facilities in Iraq, spreading of a computer virus against Iran).
It would have to be done with the help of others and 'overnight', e.g. transfering all four, aged Vanguard-class submarines from the British Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy as the last act of _military_ _transfers_ _within_ _the_ *Commonwealth* , _ending_ formally Australia's membership.
Since Britain is the most important member of NATO, Australia couldn't remain associated - then the mere 30 millions of Australia's population will even be separated from New Zealand (unless similar procedures are undergone that could *federate* the two as a polity of their own).
It becomes obvious that simply _remaining_ at the side of the US military would be _much_ _less_ *complex* - which leads to the economic consequences:
"Australia has to lower our prices and look for others to trade with (...)"
It's either _one_ ( *low* *prices* ) _or_ the _other_ (replacing most trade with China with other countries).
In case of war there will be no such thing as _neutral_ trade in the *Pacific* - submarine and guided anti-ship missile warfare will lock down the *Strait* *of* *Malacca* and other avenues (e.g. the ports of *Manila* and *Nagasaki* , _if_ China's naval assets will have advanced enough), causing 'remote *blockades'* - if Australia can't feed itself (including considerations on water and salination of soil), it will _starve_ .
At that time I'd say that the *conflict* *will* also *be* *global* as an *East-West* *confrontation* , including *Russia* and *Europe* as 'theaters of war' (especially, since the US 'managed' to _demonize_ and _alienate_ the Russian Federation into the arms of China's *'Shanghai* *Cooperation* *Organisation'* ).
In other words: Australia would have to pursue a policy of economic *'autarky'* , producing all it needs _domestically_ , likely _replacing_ _wages_ _alltogether_ with some form of 'basic income', since Australians _can't_ compete internationally with *labour* *costs* - which could _transform_ Australia into an *Orwellian* *society* ('Ingsoc') that can't tolerate public debate or immigration anymore.
Again, staying in the Western camp would ease these _grim_ prospects _considerably_ - although the threat of blockades would be real, the _largest_ _fleet_ _on_ _the_ _planet_ (in contrast to other fleets _combined_ ) would probably protect Australia's _convoys_ as it did during WW II (unless China achieves some sort of _technological_ _breakthrough_ e.g. in drone warfare, nullifying entire US supercarrier groups - which seems unlikely, considering China's _historical_ preference of _low-tech_ economic and scientific investment).
Mind You, as an *Eurasianist* that _wants_ China to counter a _'decadent'_ Western influence, I consider it to be in Australia's _realistic_ *interest* to side with the US...
The American speaker is as arrogant as trump, downright rude to the Australian speaker and audience
I'm curious. Can't a nation choose to be neutral anymore? What happened to the concept of non-alignment? Must all nations be forced to side with one military superpower or another?
That's just the USA pressure tactic. It's just that Australia doesn't have the balls to say no.
So, why is US a better choice than China? What would China do to Australia that the US would not do?
China is building an empire and Australia will be its No 1 target if war comes. Why ? Because Australia is a vast resource-rich continent with a MERE 25 M occupying it. A huge prize for China. I believe tha war is coming; it is only a matter of time : when China's power exceeds that of the US in about 25 - 30 years, IMO.
All I hear is America will not allow Australia to stay neutral(“either with us or you’re against us“ mentality). China doesn’t ask australia to side with China. As long as australia doesn’t choose to be hostile to China, China is happy for australia to stay neutral. Unfortunately Australia has chosen not to.
Australia has chosen not to stay neutral probably because most Australians believe in the "liberal hegemony" policy (as quoted by Mearsheimer). Australians view the world as the "good guys" (US, Europe, Australia) vs the "bad guys" (Russia, China), so it is very natural for Australians to be hostile to the "bad guys".
Western nation being neutral is an oxymoron. Their national foundation is based on Christianity which sees the world through the prism good vs evil. There is no middle ground. The only time them being neutral is when 2 of their friends were engaged in a fight, and both are Christians themselves.
This guy is high, what did he have before coming on stage
A stuff called trumphetamine
Empty drum make more sound 🤣🤣🤣
China is forced to be a competitor in all aspects, while Australia is forced to take sides.
John is the best, real and truth. Australia just need to listen to him and that's enough.
John...US is not a regional hegemon. It is the world hegemon...
The balancing coalition was TPP. The USA walked their partners down the primrose path for a decade and withdrew.
Australia would be foolish to pick USA - Each USA administration plays different games - one plays baseball- next one football - next one golf - China is consistent - so Australians will devastate themselves by playing different USA games just to keep up their silly ego
John, the way you talk/threaten to Australia, makes me much safe and convince me to siding with Chinese!
This is the worst comment section i have ever seen lol. Mearsheimer is expressing what he thinks is Americas point of view,. Based on deep knowledge. Comments are reacting like he's in the administration, advocating what he thinks America will do,. "He's threatening Australia! " LOL you guys are dense.
Hugh White could have given a stronger argument for Australia's alternative position.
Australia can be pro-economy AND pro-security at the same time. It's not security vs economy, as Mearsheimer would want Australians to believe. Will US remove its base in Australia if Australia does not take on an anti-China posture? Of course not. Does China's threat on trade change Australia's decision on anything?
If Australia falls into the trap of zero sum game, it's putting itself in the frontline of a war US is risking to maintain its hegemony at whatever costs, not necessarily paid by US thousands of miles away but by its allies in a proxy war.
To adopt an aggressive posture to any country on behalf of another is not in Australia's interest nor anyone's. NZ and many Southeast Asian countries don't seem to be doing that. To have economic and security stability in the region is good for all.
Hugh White made a strange statement that Singapore fell to the Japanese in World War II because Britain failed in its commitment. He went on to say that if US fails in its commitment, Australia will be left to defend itself.
ASEAN countries want US to be in the region. But these countries hardly believe that if US withdraws (very very unlikely), China would march down Southeast Asia and Australia and make colonies of them.
Why would Hugh White believe that? Is Mearsheimer tapping into this cultural fear that many Australians have of China?
New Zealand and Singapore seems to show that you can have your cake and eat it by standing your ground.
It has nothing to do with whether China is stronger than US economically or whether US is committed to this region. It has all to do with avoiding instability and a potential war in this region.