John Mearsheimer vs Jeffrey Sachs debate

[Raze]

 

[El Zapato]

Oh no, not Mearsheimer...that guy is lost in his alternate universe.

[Leo Gura]

Sachs is right, Mearsheimer is wrong.

There is no need to contain China. American hegemony is the problem, not the solution.

It's so obvious that America's biggest enemy is itself.

Edited September 20 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

2 hours ago, El Zapato said:

Oh no, not Mearsheimer...that guy is lost in his alternate universe.

He has been right way more than most of the “experts” on tv and in government 

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Sachs is right, Mearsheimer is wrong.

There is no need to contain China. American hegemony is the problem, not the solution.

It's so obvious that America's biggest enemy is itself.

I think the US should try to contain China non violently. Make deals with them to remove sanctions and make investments if they sign diplomatic agreements with their neighboring countries, try to strengthen the countries around them and increase their economic connections to each other, see if the countries can negotiate mutual demilitarization.

If China gets involved in war with India, Taiwan, Japan or Korea it will be a disaster even if the US isn’t involved 

[Nemra]

Mearsheimer is focused on his determinism.

Sachs is focused on how to brake out of that determinism.

@Leo Gura, if you think American hegemony is a problem, then others' countries future probable hegemony will also be a problem. Although by that thinking you could justify why you should remain a hegemony. But you can't trust other countries that they wouldn't want to be a hegemony.

Although I would be at peace from people talking every kind of BS about America when American hegemony ends. 😌

Edited September 20 by Nemra

[Joel3102]

Not sure why so many people get hard for this “multipolar” stuff? Is the world better when China/Russia can get away with invading its neighbours? If the US backs off, someone is gonna fill the void why would we want authoritarian states to do that? 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Not sure why so many people get hard for this “multipolar” stuff? Is the world better when China/Russia can get away with invading its neighbours? If the US backs off, someone is gonna fill the void why would we want authoritarian states to do that? 

But China isn't invading anyone. And Taiwan is part of China.

You can have a policy where the US does not interfere with any foreign nation unless that nation invades an internationally recognized nation, at which point the US will supply that nation with funds for its own defense.

If China invades the Philippines then the US could intervene, otherwise the US does not need to interfere with China.

This notion of US world hegemony simply cannot hold. Fundamentally it isn't fair. No one nation has sovereignty over the world. So a foreign policy based on that notion must ultimately fail. This is just a recognition that multipolarity is the natural and fair state of the world. You can't just bully everyone to align under you. It won't work and it breeds injustice, resentment, and hatred.

Edited September 20 by Leo Gura

[Joel3102]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But China isn't invading anyone. And Taiwan is part of China.

 

I’m pretty sure the people don’t wanna be under CCP rule over there. Plus they’re de facto seperate countries for about 70 years.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Joel3102 said:

I’m pretty sure the people don’t wanna be under CCP rule over there.

That's really none of our business.

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura, but isn't it good to hold responsible, powerful countries like you do for yours?

[Karmadhi]

36 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Is the world better when China/Russia can get away with invading its neighbours? If the US backs off, someone is gonna fill the void why would we want authoritarian states to do that? 

USA has also invaded countries.

Question here is: Why should we live in a world where USA can bully and invade whoever they want while other countries cannot and has the monopoly over it.

To be honest in the last 25 years USA has invaded and bombed way more countries than Russia and China (China is still 0 so far).

I feel like with a multipolar world countries have other places to run to for protection to avoid bullying or invasions from the big major power.

Kind of like when you have different gangs in prison which help you defend from others.

So if USA wants to bomb or invade you to advance its interest you can make alliances with Russia or China for protection and perhaps defend yourself from the USA.

Or via versa if Russia wants to invade you, then you can get help from USA.

If you think any of these big powers acts from anything rather than its selfish ruthless self interest, you are really naive.

Nobody acts to do what is right, only what serves them.

Edited September 21 by Karmadhi

[Hardkill]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Sachs is right, Mearsheimer is wrong.

There is no need to contain China. American hegemony is the problem, not the solution.

It's so obvious that America's biggest enemy is itself.

Yeah, I am surprised that Mearsheimer argue for containing China, even though he has always been against the idea of NATO containing countries like Russia.

Btw, Sachs did contribute to the devastation of Russia's economy in the 90s.

Edited September 21 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I am surprised that Mearsheimer argue for containing China, even though he has always been against the idea of NATO containing countries like Russia.

He has always been for containment, he just doesn't think Russia is a big enough threat to be worth containing.

Mearsheimer is a hegemonist. He thinks the US should rule the world.

Edited September 21 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

31 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Btw, Sachs did contribute to the devastation of Russia's economy in the 90s.

The media just pinned the blame on him and others without knowing the full story. He had a lot less control then they claimed. 

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He has always been for containment, he just doesn't think Russia is a big enough threat to be worth containing.

Mearsheimer is a hegemonist. He thinks the US should rule the world.

Oh, I see. So, he has always been a hegemonic mastermind, figuring out when to contain and when not to contain a part of the world for the long-term goal of the US taking over the whole world.

Edited September 21 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

He is a Hedge Lord

[Bando]

@Raze This was an interesting conversation to listen too any more podcasts/discussions like this?

[Raze]

7 hours ago, Bando said:

@Raze This was an interesting conversation to listen too any more podcasts/discussions like this?

 

Edited September 21 by Raze

[zazen]

Often I write, as I think others do too, from the lens of international politics and justice (idealist - Sachs) because thats the cultural marinade of liberalism we're all swimming in. It's the liberal order we're trying to (and told to) build. It defers to justice before peace, rather than the game of power politics human nature finds it far too easy to default to (realist - Mearshimer).

We created psycho-political frameworks of laws and institutions so that we don't have to use the might makes right way of doing things which is often bloody and brutal. We went from managing our societies through raw physicality to refined psychology - doesn't the notion of us being civilised rest upon this shift? From raw to refined, from physical brawn to the psychological use of our brains to affect change and peacefully transfer positions of power.

Edited October 1 by zazen