We should all listen more to John Meirsheimer! Makes sense!

A simple joy when history proves you right

We are not facing a problem of boredom now for sure :)

Great to see so many foreigners talk on Romania Energy Center

Disgraceful to see that the auditorium is not full. This man is so intelligent and important to listen to!

Mearsheimer! What a great speaker.

every word he speaks is to the point.... easy to follow his thinking and his logic...I am very happy to see and hear him talking all over the world and captured on You Tube.

The Man knows exactly what he is talking about. “He’s not wrong!” -Enoch

ALL and all John Mearsheimer's constructs are very good and evolving..Maybe the very best so far!

Another excellent presentation by one of the best IR scholars of our time.

John is one of the greatest (Top 5) working geopolitical thinkers today.

Prof. Mearsheimer seems to be "trending" now for some reason. ;-) Another reason (other than the obvious) for me in New Zealand, is his comment at the 1:48:50 mark about "illiberal democracies". We now have a minority that is greatly disadvantaged by govt. mandates. I find his way of defining liberalism and democracy especially apropos. It seems that our "illiberal democracy" is more of an ochlocracy at the moment, verging on tyranny.

A great teacher the world has to listen

This was excellent. Very good audience, panel, and of course, speaker.

I fell asleep with UKposts on and somehow I got to this

what a wonderful presentation .....kudos

Thanks for taking me back to school!

Go Mearsheimer!

Highly timely interaction with the greatman

You know the truth and intellectual honesty when you hear it.

EXCELLENT

30:11 The phrase "card-carrying liberal" is a colloquial expression used to describe someone who is staunchly identified as being a committed, unapologetic, or strongly devoted liberal. The term "card-carrying" implies that the person openly embraces liberal beliefs, ideals, and values, often to the point of being proud and vocal about their stance. The phrase originated from membership cards issued by organizations, so in this context, it's used figuratively to emphasize someone's strong and unwavering dedication to liberal principles.

See time @33:17 if you are interested in Professor John Mearsheimer's take on the current crisis w/ Russia over Ukraine. Basically, America is agitating Russia in the name of "liberal hegemony" per EU & NATO, and we're wrongly accusing Putin of being the aggressor when in fact we are the ideological, nearsighted baddies.

This was my ‘ I fell asleep and this was playing when I woke up video ‘

I love this guy

Remarkable!

❤ Madeleine Albright was a prominent figure in American politics. She served as the first female Secretary of State in the United States under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Albright played a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy during her tenure. She was known for her diplomatic efforts, particularly in dealing with complex international issues, including the NATO intervention in Kosovo and advocating for the expansion of NATO. Albright was highly regarded for her intellect, diplomacy, and her efforts to promote democracy and human rights on the global stage. Additionally, she was known for her role as an advocate for women's rights and issues both in the United States and worldwide.

You can’t be running adds every 7 minutes… that’s very unfair.

This professor is very educated and smart.

Great scholar and a realistic approach, the book

I would love to hear his view as to whether commerce can be the force that can overturn traditional geopolitics, thinking more the power of the WEF and the multi national businesses such as Facebook, Bill Gates etc and particularly the inclusion of Chinese companies (strangely exclusion of Russian Companies) as to whether the strength of this organisation will in time have more influence over the power distribution of the world than liberal hegenomy has had.

Excellent stuff

Mearsheimer, the intellectual bulldozer. Go, Mearshi, go!!

Very practical! Very realistic summary of core international affairs post 1990😅

Domnule nu stiam ca o sa apara un om asa de marcat de asa multa dusmanie pe mine o romanca care si-a castigat tot ce are prin munca,bunatate ptr.oameni di copii.ABa am facut si voluntariat si am imbratisat toate rasele de copii,care aveau nevoi dar erau buni,minunati.Iata cine mi-a aparut azi in carti,unul careincearca sa-mi tina prefica ca sunt prietena cu XI JINPING ,cu PRESEDINTELE PUTIN cu arabi,cu islamisti,cu palestanieni, cu isralenieni,,cu arabi,cu musulmani,etc.Ii respect pe toti si toti ma respecta.Va multumesc dragi prieteni tuturor!

My statement is Treat people how they want to be treated.

Lecture 6:40 - 45:00

The taproot of liberal hegemony refers to the foundational principle or core belief that underlies the dominance or influence of liberal democratic values in global politics. It encompasses the idea that spreading liberal democratic principles, such as human rights, free markets, and democratic governance, is the best approach for ensuring stability, security, and progress in the world. This concept drives international relations and foreign policy decisions in favor of promoting these values globally.

EVERYONE CRITICIZING THIS MAN YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAN COULD HAVE WRITTEN A TRUE WORKING FORIEGN POLICY. WE HAVE FAILED OUR PEOPLE.

Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA. Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945. It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, *our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires,* and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put 'Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25) Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne (historian), but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. If it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring: - attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London) - attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London) - Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC) - The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech) - Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC) From wiki, and regarding the theory: *"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."* Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay) Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.

2022 This explains current issues in Ukraine. He's spot on again

Interesting the people asking questions in the room seems to me are not fool by the USA speaker

"If you live next to a great power (Ukraine), you have no right to decide your own foreign policy or the great power will crush you." They all smirked. Well, they're not laughing now I guess. For EU schills, sovereignty and nationalism is the great threat but suddenly Ukraine's sovereignty and nationalism is paramount for it's democracy they now claim. How strange! They certainly didn't want the UK to have theirs. The whole thing reminded me of an American at Spectre HQ. The EU flags everywhere set the tone of course.

The University of Chicago " Why Ukraine is the West's Fault " UKposts video John Mearsheimer 6 years ago

Trump kept us out of war with Russia and did not push the neo liberal policies. Trump also did not push Ukraine to join nato.

Very interesting, shows us the world ante covid! How far have we come, what have we lost in such a short Term of time.....

First: Mearsheimer's lecture was excellent, very well organized and thought out however being of same age as author I have noticed, observed and seen what has happened in last 50 years first hand and have been dismayed at U.S. actions over and over and Mr. Mearsheimer's lecture sums up my experience living through this era. Now let me address the 'panel' sitting there, it seems to me the panel is focused on primarily is U.S.A. taxpayer, i.e., they have all enjoyed the increase in their living standards primarily because of the generosity of U.S. taxpayer AND and don't want to lose such support as observed by anxiety in their comments. Running the rest of the world off US taxpayer on supposition US taxpayer is so well off he can afford to change entire world security and economic status is not only wrong but dangerous! The USA has promoted all states around world to become addicted to USA taxpayer support while not requiring these states to look how their countries can become 'independently sustainable. The idea USA citizens enjoy highest standard of living in world is a fallacy; some yes, but far from all and is not limited to economic status in many cases (too complicated to discuss currently). I think Mr. Mearsheimer should focus more on how USA's 'liberal hegemony' has caused almost every nation on planet becoming economically and security dependent on USA. taxpayer - which is a big problem! For some reason I do not understand how Mr. Mearsheimer dismisses world population as not being a factor in how the 'mechanics' of world society operates, I suspect he thinks world has 'infinite' resources and no impact on ecosystem, very dangerous philosophical view about life! No discussion of this nature can avoid discussing population/climate/ecosystem because world observations must be far broader than 'borders & security' issues. Last comment: The panel makes this lecture tortuously boring with their ill thought out overly long comments that turn this lecture into multiple lectures - too much, overbearing long winded poorly thought out comments destroy the positive aspects of the lecture!

Libereal hegemony may come again if America will produce, represent 50% of world economy. I believe that hapeend after 1947. Many states accept that kind of hemogony when they are in the receiving end, but not in the front line of a battle.

Hard to imagine why this doesn't make sense to the majority!

The analysis mentioned below about the present global dysfunctions does not go against what is mentioned by many Religions and Philosophies: we need to discredit the "I am right, the other is wrong" syndrome. Ways of thinking and feeling can act as positive buffer zones avoiding conflicts: for example most people agree that in life balancing acts are important and that to set concepts in concrete can turn a good point into a bad score! It must not be argued that the progress in technology is not matched by a progress in Humanism when more and more Scientists study and share the facts that Science has the potential to lead to and connect with Universal or Spiritual Values. So public support can help get there and for better being, self development and Human Resources Management should be promoted in a free environment.

Eliza Gheorghe is a cutie

i like the 1:56:39 question. he pointed out that china is fragile from inside and i very much agree with it

john- the politics it self.

I think Mearsheimer has a compelling realistic argument but I would like to hear the opposite side pushing back to see what comes of it.

I want to know what he is saying now

How did liberalism become bullyisim?

The gentleman asked about illiberal liberalism, not illiberal democracy. I wish someone clarified with him so John could have given the correct answer.

36:10 Both secretary told there is no threat of Russia, after 36:30

Eliza Gheorghe ("Peace love and dope: 26:37)

Gee do these people know this issue better than EVERYONE else…..

Liberalism is over with! My good friend

1:05:42 how can this dude say that the liberal hegemony label didn’t align with policy, Mearsheimer had referencing Madeline Albright and the bush doctrine throughout his entire explanation of the theory. He just said that there was no evidence when he was just told it just now in the first half of this event. He must think people in the room are stupid

Using as an example George Bernard Shaw is entering straight into the Fabian Ideology.

Can anybody tell me when is & was Jhon Mearsheimer wrong ?

Such a pity that the audio reverberations should not have been avoided with simple techniques. Sorry, hard to listen to.

😂 good work

It's a great discussion, but regarding the topic about the nature of "illiberal democracy", I think that Mearsheimer takes the term "illiberal" too literally. My personal understanding of "illiberal" in such a context is that "liberalism" is thought to mean roughly something like "moralistic grandstanding and imperialism using liberal rights as pretext", and the word "illiberal" is used to express a rejection of such.

Watching Mearsheimer a lot over the past few months and the Ukraine invasion has been gratifying, but there's one major point of contention which remains. America isn't trying to spread Liberal Hegemony. America is trying to spread AMERICAN Hegemony UNDER THE GUISE of Liberal Hegemony. This is what creates countries like Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Ukraine. As a realist, surely he understands this. I believe Mearsheimer is someone who's simply become tired of idiotic decisions made by a US which doesn't recognize the limits of its power and who is, perhaps, disgusted by our crimes abroad. It's resulted in a country which has squandered its primacy in a mere 30 years, despite a historically unprecedented military advance encircling the globe.

The Romanian who likes USA so much: " Why were we given to the Russian serial killer?" Well, because you were in kahoots with the Nazi Germany, therefore a legitimate spoils of war. Same goes for all the Baltic states. Professor was too nice to say that.

About politically correct ideas: The "groups" who share "some kind of power", looks to me, are interested to preserve their advantages, benifts, ... and create a "diapazon of ideas" that they do not like to be challanged, but accepted as as "politicaly correct ideas". This diapozon of ideas is not a part of any document. It is implied. I have seen it in public schools. President Trump was against "politicaly correct ideas" but right now, some of his suporters are against vacination for wich HE worked very hard as "something very important, higly correct solution of the problem of fightin pandemic of corona virus. Looks to me some supporters consider vaccination as "A not correct solution" My conclusion is: To fight agains a status quo, some people attac "Politically correct idea" that represenr interest of that group. When they take or lose power they start to create a new diapazon of "Politically correct ideas" that fits with their personal interest. In this case most of them are apparatchiks. They believe that they are fighting for their egzistence. It is easy to forget "moral values" in the battle to survive. They believe, that latte, they can do a damaging control, repear.

What is this, the John Mearsheimer fan club?

He's right on in most areas, other areas not so, somehow leaves out the power of individuals with huge wealth pools in the western economic structure who kill for great wealth. and under the guise of the great liberal democracy lie.

👏🙏🇿🇦

I love John's views and fully agree. However at 32:30 about the Bush doctrine, he's not mentioning the 9/11-event which any nation would take as a declaration of war (or simply use it as excuse), hence the Middle-east to pieces now. It might turn off part of the audience..

1:11:20 that Romanian lady 5 years ago thought this benefits would last forever

34:55 well..... yeap it exploaded.

Here's my two cents worth having listened to several of Mearsheimer's speeches throughout the world. The only way to understand Mearsheimer (Mearsh)' is to accept vast, sweeping generalizations, (as was already mentioned in previous criticisms by some of his academic contemporaries) although to his credit he NEVER claimed his theory explains everything. In other presentations he describes this term "populism" differently depending on the jurisdiction in which he's presenting. As it relates to his Hungarian example, given Hungary is a neighbour of Romania, he says the prime minister of Hungary, Orban, is happy to trample fundamental "inalienable human rights", rejecting politically correct dogma. Unfortunately Mearsh does not express what Hungary is actually contesting in the context of rejecting certain "inalienable rights". News flash: They relate to rejecting same sex marriage, and reaffirms their right to privilege canonical Christian pillars, such as traditional marriage between man and woman, limits on abortion, strictly two sexes, throwing out seditious, and corrupting concepts related to teaching anal sex to elementary school children, and trans bathroom issues, to name a few. Mearsh is either unaware or doesn't have the time to explain that Orban is not interested in the liberal left, Marxist political correctness path, a reaction against which America saw its greatest peaceful political revolution in the election of Donald Trump. In the same vein of "populism" (which he is currently at a loss to explain - see my final evaluation related to Mearsh's work below). Which is why Orban is comfortable saying that Hungarians are alright with "illiberal liberalism". Yet Mearsh does not make this distinction and instead refers to "inalienable rights" being violated in Hungary. A reckless claim. He evidently doesn't understand this supremely important nuance, and is devoid of explaining the deep influence of cultural Marxism on "liberalism". To give him benefit of the doubt, perhaps time constraints didn't allow him to go into detail, but nonetheless you'd think that a presentation taking over 2 hours would allow him to qualify his remarks, but he didn't. So sad, he couldn't/wouldn't give the respect due to the developments among the V4 nations, a bulwark against the excesses of an unelected unaccountable Brussels. There would so much more to say about this subject (such as Brussel's insistence on population exchange through mass migration, with the help of unelected NGO's, and the concomitant obvious excesses left unchecked until certain countries that have not taken part in colonizing activities in their history, are saying they're opting out of a Western driven neo-communist drive to enslave Europeans under the guise of democracy). Hence I don't believe he is as informed (assuming this talk published near the time of the talk in Nov. 2018?) as one would expect relative recent developments within the EU context. Mearsh may not realize it, but his bias on world affairs is tainted with the very bias he claims other nations have legitimately have had, confronting U.S. hegemony. Lastly the thought that the U.S. needed the Soviets to defeat Japan, IMO this is totally outrageous. The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Sorry Mearsh. So much to say, so little space. That is not to say that Mearsh doesn't have legitimacy relative his academic contribution, and I agree with a lot of his points, (but I vehemently disagree that there was nothing the Americans could do about leaving Eastern Europe at the hands of the Soviets, in 1945, they dropped two atomic bombs on Japan). Furthermore, they left Hungary high and dry, when it came to the revolution of 1956, it appears they may be leaving the Kurds high and dry, given recent developments about pulling out of Syria, (granted this was not known during the time of Mearsh's talk here). He's right in that American hubris kept the U.S. naive, while the KGB were laughing at them, compared to their upstart (continuation of OSS) CIA. Basically the power of unfettered capitalism and cost accounting won the day. Also I disagree with Mearsh's notion that the U.S. pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese. Except it is not so much the U.S. as it is the DNC that pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, with their insistence on "Russian Collusion" in Trump's election. The DNC's rabid, Machiavellian insistence on falsely accusing the Trump administration with Russian collusion, has alienated Russia. Lastly, what I hold most fascinating is that Mearsh does not spend even an iota of time contemplating the probabilities that in fact any U.S. administration would have been motivated by looting foreign nations, (consider neo-con Halliburton in Iraq) that is deep corruption within the U.S. state department, enabled and promoted by silent powerful partners that stood to gain from privileged status, the very like that is only now coming to light in context of Ukraine, (George Soros deploying his wealth to foment the Orange revolution) and let's not forget Uranium 1 deal involving Hillary Clinton. In other words KLEPTOCRACY. Hence Mearsh' simplistic generalizations, and covering for the corruption of the elite U.S. political class. Of course let's not forget that the (Chinese) CCP is likely as big a Kleptocracy if NOT LARGER THAN THE U.S.. Lastly what crimes against minorities is the Romanian woman at the end (right of the panel) referring to in the U.S.? Based on the final questions posed by this panel, it is evident that they, are globalists, as they express their fear of populism. Ironically, apparently these panelists aren't aware that Mearsh's entire point is that the threat of political liberalism, which this panel is enamoured with, is militarism, which endangers the world. Paradoxical. Evidently surprising to this panel.

North Korea is missing in this debate🤔

Book Title too similar to Richard Dawkins Book. Hope Dawkins’s getting some % of royalties.

God help me as I age; I don't want to speak so slowly.

Interesting. But did his miscalculate Putin ?

The problem is not that US spreads liberalism, but it gathers resources. Oil in Irak had more weight than lack of human rights in there. Napoleon armies spread ideas of french revolution in Europe but in the same they plundered it

13:23 wow, what an unexpected comparison of fashism with liberal democracy

Now if we could only understand what you are saying.

you change your masters every 50 years

34:03 34:04 Monoror Doctrine

I think it’s vital first of all for America to be United with the allies in the free world and perhaps seek possibility to cooperate with Russia vying “compete” with China, the biggest threat security concern to the world. But yet there is another concern for a stringer Russia that is try to restore the land of old Soviet Union,?that also would be a potential threat to America too. I think America need to be more United and not just focus on race division, transgender, or being manipulated by certain ideology.

Can you build a 3d Printer over your city..

Mearsheimer sees the world as the Vietnam war. Every war is different.

The word mistake should not be used in discussing international affairs.

which basic rights are denied in hungary to people ?

Shame we had to listen to the plodder who spoke after JM. Like most career politicians, Former Ambassador Celac has mastered the art of talking a lot and saying very little. Save yourself. Skip from 46.04 - 1.00.00

I have a feeling God iz going to ask those beaglez all about your principlez.

The Romanian guy waxes on about the danger they feel from Russia. He seems not to know that a few hundred thousand Nazi Romanians invaded the USSR fighting through the Ukraine into Stalingrad.

Human Rights has been one of the most successful policies forwarded by western democracies ever. The idea that the life of a person in the developing world is of equal value to the life of an American is what compels us to act when we should. The trick is knowing our limits. You can see this playing out with great drama in the vaccine distribution debate. How many healthy, young Americans should be vaccinated ahead of elderly, weak non-Americans?

Are people listening to this guy professor John j mearshimear

😅😢

Oh my god. Can the Romanian ambassador be anymore wordy and long winded?

coterminous with sync with

ce bine a zis baiatu: Rumenia..