Kissingerian foreign policy has a reputation for being clever and pragmatic. I don't see it that way. To me, it just sounds like amorality. Doing the RIGHT thing really matters in foreign policy. Having a trustworthy reputation and upholding our values helps us to deal with other countries and make allies. We've squandered a lot of that reputation in recent years, as our foreign policy often looks confused or purely self-interested and thus no better than our enemies. Secondly, at the end of tbe day China and the US are destined for some kind of conflict. So long as the Chinese regime is autocratic in nature, the mere existence of the US as a powerful, vibrant democracy is an existential threat to them. So long as their people see that there's another way to live, the chance will always remain that the Chinese citizenry will decide to free themselves like Taiwan did. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea; ALL of them have as their eventual goal tbe destruction of the United States. It's dangerous to act as if that's not tbe case, as if we can find a common ground to work together in the long term. We made that same mistake with Putin. Long after he showed himself to be an autocrat, we kept trying to deal with him like we would a democratic nation. The war in Ukraine is the result. Even aside from war, the autocrats are trying to destroy us politically and economically as well. I'm not saying that we can't have any diplomacy; there are small areas where maybe we could set up some boundaries or rules, or brief moments of common interest like defending against the COVID pandemic. In general, however, so long as these autocratic regimes exist they are going to be working to destroy us and our democratic allies. End of story.
Kissingerian foreign policy should be called Foster Dulles Christian Nationalistic anti democracy policy. Eisenhower and Foster Dulles destroyed one country after another and gave us much of the problems we have today. We must work the total system because Europe, Middle East, and Asia are all connected through the basic inputs of fertilizer (Ukraine, Russia), oil, natural gas, steel precursors, neon, and so on. To avoid famine, more conflict escalation, the USA must do what it did in WWII and Bretton Woods 80 years of economic success.
There's a lot of what you said that's right, but there's another main point that you and other westerners miss. Might may not make right, but might is very important. The West used to be mighty and the rest of the world not, and their view of the world was shaped by that era. In today's world, everybody is mighty. Anything the west wants, it will get a much larger pushback than before. Democracy vs autocracy doesn't really matter. During the Cold War, all the allies of the West were autocracies. Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Zaire, Iran, Egypt, Taiwan and South Korea were military dictatorships who later on became democracies AFTER they modernised and got rich. Nobody ever believes that democracy is the key to prosperity and modernisation. Asia has dictatorships, and the rest of us are agnostic towards democracy. This good vs evil narrative will get you nowhere. Asia does what it does. It sometimes adopts western culture, and sometimes doesn't. Most importantly, it does it for itself, the West doesn't matter. It's always better to have friends than enemies. But the west is not the centre of the world because this new world does not have a centre. It is correct for the US to pivot to Asia, but it also needs another pivot - it needs to understand how to live in a world without being able to dominate that world. It needs to know how to think like a smaller nation.
To a certain extent, the CCP can not be trusted to be a good actor in the matter of intellectual property rights, and until they are, we can't get fairly exercised agreements.
One of the worst things that could happen in the near future regarding all of this is Trump being put back in office and the US returning to an isolationist America First/Fortress America policy. But then Trump would make just about everything worse if he gets back in office and his team puts Project 2025 into play.
And while I know Mr Cohen is talking at 40:37 about president Xi when he says "...we've got a problem with a autocratic leader who is aging who sees himself as having a historic mission who is prone to make some bad decisions um and I think we've underestimated the extent to which ... he's made some terrible economic decisions uh he made some terrible decisions I think during COVID..." but it sure sounds like another person who wants back in the White House. Adding another negative to the equation will only make things worse.
Ya gotta wonder if the Dude has a retribution wish for USA! America hasn't been good to him with his 5-6 Bankruptcies and he is anything BUT an isolationist. His, Jared foreign dealings and failures are well documented. Make no mistake of the UNFIT and inexperience in MidEast, Israel and only Putin knows for sure what else.
(Well, there are faces for the people who I have read over the years.) While the TPP may have been a good idea and not sold well to the American public after the bad handling of NAFTA by Bush Sr negotiators and Clinton -- along with the admission of China into the WTO -- made a TPP impossible. When you go to China and see the new and modern cities and high-tech trains, those were built on the loss of jobs and wages in the US, Africa, South America, and the EU. It made for some of the richest years for the US and EU stock markets while reducing the standard of living for the majority of the people. It laid the groundwork for the despair that made Trumpism possible in the US and now in the EU. The endless wars of Bush and Chaney in the Mideast and Africa reduced our desire for international involvement. What I am saying is that the last ten years came about by bad policy choices made by neocon politicians and think tanks from the previous 20 years with their failure to see domestic consequences. This was the blowback.
I'm going to have to read the book. I suspect a tilt. I could be wrong. And I want to see how they write about Chinese agency and Chinese policy's crafted essential from the century of humiliation. There are many sides to this coin. And i hear tilt. Just want to see if its because of my own bias
Around 55:00 when Mr. Fontaine speaks of government overspending. I can't think of anything more at the moment than the total cost for two years of the biggest _Do Nothing_ 435 members of our House in 248 years of having an American government!! Two years of 435 x $150k a yr salaries alone come to over $130Million!
@@daddyhanratty8989 Congress needs to return to aJimmy Carter laws where unlimited corporate PAC bribes and manipulation of stocks were both illegal. And qualified immunity didn't exist. Those things made America Great!
Is it not possible that the pivot largely failed because of some the decisions these gentlemen made vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan? After all the US sunk avout as much treasure into those two nations as China has spent on the Belt and Road initiative. I think failing to acknowledge the role Iraq and Afghanistan played in causing this shows their lack of self-reflection.
Exactly! I’ve been listening to the shield of the Republic for a long time and I generally like what they say, but they sure do have blinders on as to the damage Republican presidents have done.
it’s sounds like the USA indeed SHOULD have pivoted to Asia but didn’t do it well enough. Wonder why such a pivot didn’t come in the early 2000s or earlier. Too focused on the middle east?
Around 2000, there was a big victory lap after the end of the Cold War. It was hard to see things clearly, even though there were already signs that the financial system of the world was on very shaky ground - witness the financial crises in Russia, Argentina and East Asia in the 90s. East Asia was already prospering by the 90s, but it was a time when China was not yet in full force. People always forget that China 40 years ago was a basket case and the speed at which it became a great power is too fast for US to wrap its head around. The post-Cold War thinking was 1. that China would be like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. It would prosper, and then liberalise and turn into states that resembled the west more. A China that becomes prosperous would resemble those first few countries that made it into the developed nation status. 2. We have come to the end of history. Countries wanting to be like the west would be the norm. The world would not need taking care of, because everything would run on a self-correcting mechanism. The pivot would fail, partly because of the neglect from the West around that time, but also because the West doesn't really understand Asia as well as Asia does. The West carries around way too much philosophical baggage to truly understand what is going on in Asia. There will be a lot to unpack and probably this video covers a lot of it. But in the 2000, the centre of gravity of the world was in the West. Today, the centre of gravity has shifted towards Asia. So even if the US is still richer and more powerful than China, it's not apparent that the combination of US and Europe is richer and more powerful than Asia added up together. So I don't know if there's any mistake here, but the era of the west being more powerful than the rest of the world - something that has lasted around 500 years - is over, its end was a long time coming, and it's inevitable. What lies ahead is pretty murky.
Seems that moving our industrial base to China had some downsides. But a few investment bankers (e.g. Mitt Romney) made abnormal profits, so I guess it was a fair trade.
I could comment endlessly on this discussion, but I'll limit this one to noticing the seemingly oversimplified view of diplomacy and deterrence as the only possible motivational factors, and that military might would only be seen as a deterrent, rather than an aggression of some sort. Sometimes real or feigned apathy might produce better results than engagement of any type.
The allies should stand up for Taiwan without American pressure to do so. The countries that benefit from having us at their back, need to pay it forward to Taiwan.
Although Robert Blackwill has many good points I don't agree with him completely. First: We can't separate the economy, people's expectations, and diplomacy. We are a democracy and if the 80s gave us expectations that it is the end of civilization and we will live in peace with all the world, the voters will not support military escalation. That is what happened in the 90s. That is why the Bush administration was so severely criticized over Iraq. Now we see that the end of civilization was a false narrative and false expectation. But if any political strategist had seen it in the 90s they should explain it to the public Second: Now I think it was a mistake to believe that we won the Cold War in the 80s. It looks like the totalitarian regimes were losing economic competition due to their intrinsic problem relative to the nature of the totalitarian regimes. They were looking for the opportunity to evolve economically keeping the oligarchical nature of their society. Reaganomics gave them this opportunity. We were under the false impression that they would become democratic. Third: Democratic ideas are crucial to our progress and our security. Nobody would give a dime for defense if it was not for our freedom and our interests. That was under question lately. That is why the idea of less military spending was so popular everywhere. If China is moving to democracy, then why can't we be friends, there are no antagonistic problems, and everything could be solved with diplomacy. If China is a totalitarian state that is trying to make our democracy weaker, then it is a different story. I think Obama's foreign policy was not hawkish enough. But, again, that is the result of all the expectations of a peaceful future.
Really appreciate this summary of the consequences of disconnected global initiatives & decisions via the fed & military aiming with little to no regard to context or continuity. Especially via this sage panel of gentlemen ❤ So heartbreakingly unfortunately reactive results the siloed leadership netted, with or without intent. Regardless, keep the faith ❤ 🇺🇸 10 years is nominal in relation especially to a historically proven united spirit, incepted for the good of all
Mr. Cohen's pessimistic analysis seems depressingly accurate. No amount of diplomacy will change the trajectory. Like Putin, Xi is tying a desire for immortality to expansion of empire.
Maybe by a bit, but I'd argue we need to change what we're spending those defense dollars on more than increase the funding. We have too many other things that the federal budget needs to go towards in addition to defense spending. So unless the fed is going to raise taxes, increasing defense spending any appreciable amount is going to be tricky.
We already spend more and have the most bloated military budget without audits. Taxpayers are getting gouged by fewer contractors. The MIC is now just a handful of contractors.
Errr.... We were trying to come out of the Great Recession. The economy was the focus. It wasn't until Obama was in his last year in office until the economy felt recovered.
For those who support an anti-imperialist foreign policy, "Shield of the Republic" is an invaluable know-your-enemy resource. The talking heads here are despicable, and some of them should be on trial in The Hague
I clicked on this video knowing I would be disappointed that it had nothing to do with the Fallout game or TV series. 😅 Please consider doing a series of reaction videos to the TV show. 😂
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Love Jimmy Carter and John Lewis who gave everything for my State. Jimmy will celebrate a Century on this round ship October the First of this Year!
Oh yes, you’re right! Thanks for pointing out!
Way to jinx him.
I miss John Lewis! What a voice he was❤️🤍💙
@@missshroom5512 I know. Definitely one of those people I didn't realize how huge of an influence he was until I was floored by the news.
Just pulled out one of his many books. He is thoughtful and BELOVED 💓🍑🙏🌍🌎🌏
The part of Benedict Arnold that was a hero is buried with full honors- the leg he lost in that battle. The rest of him can rot in hades.
Kissingerian foreign policy has a reputation for being clever and pragmatic. I don't see it that way. To me, it just sounds like amorality. Doing the RIGHT thing really matters in foreign policy. Having a trustworthy reputation and upholding our values helps us to deal with other countries and make allies. We've squandered a lot of that reputation in recent years, as our foreign policy often looks confused or purely self-interested and thus no better than our enemies. Secondly, at the end of tbe day China and the US are destined for some kind of conflict. So long as the Chinese regime is autocratic in nature, the mere existence of the US as a powerful, vibrant democracy is an existential threat to them. So long as their people see that there's another way to live, the chance will always remain that the Chinese citizenry will decide to free themselves like Taiwan did. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea; ALL of them have as their eventual goal tbe destruction of the United States. It's dangerous to act as if that's not tbe case, as if we can find a common ground to work together in the long term. We made that same mistake with Putin. Long after he showed himself to be an autocrat, we kept trying to deal with him like we would a democratic nation. The war in Ukraine is the result. Even aside from war, the autocrats are trying to destroy us politically and economically as well. I'm not saying that we can't have any diplomacy; there are small areas where maybe we could set up some boundaries or rules, or brief moments of common interest like defending against the COVID pandemic. In general, however, so long as these autocratic regimes exist they are going to be working to destroy us and our democratic allies. End of story.
Very well written and spot on.
Kissingerian foreign policy should be called Foster Dulles Christian Nationalistic anti democracy policy. Eisenhower and Foster Dulles destroyed one country after another and gave us much of the problems we have today. We must work the total system because Europe, Middle East, and Asia are all connected through the basic inputs of fertilizer (Ukraine, Russia), oil, natural gas, steel precursors, neon, and so on. To avoid famine, more conflict escalation, the USA must do what it did in WWII and Bretton Woods 80 years of economic success.
Thought provoking and persuasive. Thank you.
There's a lot of what you said that's right, but there's another main point that you and other westerners miss. Might may not make right, but might is very important. The West used to be mighty and the rest of the world not, and their view of the world was shaped by that era. In today's world, everybody is mighty. Anything the west wants, it will get a much larger pushback than before.
Democracy vs autocracy doesn't really matter. During the Cold War, all the allies of the West were autocracies. Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Zaire, Iran, Egypt,
Taiwan and South Korea were military dictatorships who later on became democracies AFTER they modernised and got rich. Nobody ever believes that democracy is the key to prosperity and modernisation. Asia has dictatorships, and the rest of us are agnostic towards democracy. This good vs evil narrative will get you nowhere.
Asia does what it does. It sometimes adopts western culture, and sometimes doesn't. Most importantly, it does it for itself, the West doesn't matter. It's always better to have friends than enemies. But the west is not the centre of the world because this new world does not have a centre. It is correct for the US to pivot to Asia, but it also needs another pivot - it needs to understand how to live in a world without being able to dominate that world. It needs to know how to think like a smaller nation.
To a certain extent, the CCP can not be trusted to be a good actor in the matter of intellectual property rights, and until they are, we can't get fairly exercised agreements.
One of the worst things that could happen in the near future regarding all of this is Trump being put back in office and the US returning to an isolationist America First/Fortress America policy. But then Trump would make just about everything worse if he gets back in office and his team puts Project 2025 into play.
And while I know Mr Cohen is talking at 40:37 about president Xi when he says "...we've got a problem with a autocratic leader who is aging who sees himself as having a historic mission who is prone to make some bad decisions um and I think we've underestimated the extent to which ... he's made some terrible economic decisions uh he made some terrible decisions I think during
COVID..." but it sure sounds like another person who wants back in the White House. Adding another negative to the equation will only make things worse.
If Don the Con gets put in charge of anything, then it's doomed 😢😮🤬💙🌊
Ya gotta wonder if the Dude has a retribution wish for USA! America hasn't been good to him with his 5-6 Bankruptcies and he is anything BUT an isolationist. His, Jared foreign dealings and failures are well documented. Make no mistake of the UNFIT and inexperience in MidEast, Israel and only Putin knows for sure what else.
(Well, there are faces for the people who I have read over the years.) While the TPP may have been a good idea and not sold well to the American public after the bad handling of NAFTA by Bush Sr negotiators and Clinton -- along with the admission of China into the WTO -- made a TPP impossible. When you go to China and see the new and modern cities and high-tech trains, those were built on the loss of jobs and wages in the US, Africa, South America, and the EU. It made for some of the richest years for the US and EU stock markets while reducing the standard of living for the majority of the people. It laid the groundwork for the despair that made Trumpism possible in the US and now in the EU. The endless wars of Bush and Chaney in the Mideast and Africa reduced our desire for international involvement. What I am saying is that the last ten years came about by bad policy choices made by neocon politicians and think tanks from the previous 20 years with their failure to see domestic consequences. This was the blowback.
Funny how shit goes down.
@@James-hd4ms it's like the guy who shows up and says, "Son, I got a great idea..."
I'm going to have to read the book. I suspect a tilt. I could be wrong. And I want to see how they write about Chinese agency and Chinese policy's crafted essential from the century of humiliation. There are many sides to this coin. And i hear tilt. Just want to see if its because of my own bias
@@timeslip8246 good idea. These guys are smart and China is a problem. They are not wrong in that.
@eottoe2001 they are not wrong in that. But I've heard alot of wrong answers to solution when it comes to China
Around 55:00 when Mr. Fontaine speaks of government overspending. I can't think of anything more at the moment than the total cost for two years of the biggest _Do Nothing_ 435 members of our House in 248 years of having an American government!!
Two years of 435 x $150k a yr salaries alone come to over $130Million!
I absolutely agree, not to mention they all do insider trading as well
@@daddyhanratty8989 Congress needs to return to aJimmy Carter laws where unlimited corporate PAC bribes and manipulation of stocks were both illegal. And qualified immunity didn't exist. Those things made America Great!
Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation and the breakdown of factors and possible decisions to be made.
Is it not possible that the pivot largely failed because of some the decisions these gentlemen made vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan? After all the US sunk avout as much treasure into those two nations as China has spent on the Belt and Road initiative. I think failing to acknowledge the role Iraq and Afghanistan played in causing this shows their lack of self-reflection.
Yeah. I mean they just hop over the failure in iraq they cheerleaded and wanted to ramp up for another set of conflicts.
Exactly! I’ve been listening to the shield of the Republic for a long time and I generally like what they say, but they sure do have blinders on as to the damage Republican presidents have done.
Yes!!! MORE OF THIS!!!
it’s sounds like the USA indeed SHOULD have pivoted to Asia but didn’t do it well enough. Wonder why such a pivot didn’t come in the early 2000s or earlier. Too focused on the middle east?
W had to take up his dad's mantle. And thus, Iraq and on and on
Russia
Around 2000, there was a big victory lap after the end of the Cold War. It was hard to see things clearly, even though there were already signs that the financial system of the world was on very shaky ground - witness the financial crises in Russia, Argentina and East Asia in the 90s.
East Asia was already prospering by the 90s, but it was a time when China was not yet in full force. People always forget that China 40 years ago was a basket case and the speed at which it became a great power is too fast for US to wrap its head around.
The post-Cold War thinking was 1. that China would be like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. It would prosper, and then liberalise and turn into states that resembled the west more. A China that becomes prosperous would resemble those first few countries that made it into the developed nation status.
2. We have come to the end of history. Countries wanting to be like the west would be the norm. The world would not need taking care of, because everything would run on a self-correcting mechanism.
The pivot would fail, partly because of the neglect from the West around that time, but also because the West doesn't really understand Asia as well as Asia does. The West carries around way too much philosophical baggage to truly understand what is going on in Asia.
There will be a lot to unpack and probably this video covers a lot of it. But in the 2000, the centre of gravity of the world was in the West. Today, the centre of gravity has shifted towards Asia. So even if the US is still richer and more powerful than China, it's not apparent that the combination of US and Europe is richer and more powerful than Asia added up together.
So I don't know if there's any mistake here, but the era of the west being more powerful than the rest of the world - something that has lasted around 500 years - is over, its end was a long time coming, and it's inevitable. What lies ahead is pretty murky.
The Second Iraq War messed up a lot.
Thank goodness for the Private Sector with Technology 🙏🤗
Seems that moving our industrial base to China had some downsides. But a few investment bankers (e.g. Mitt Romney) made abnormal profits, so I guess it was a fair trade.
you are being sarcastic right? It created the rise of the billionaire investor class
@@zu0832 Ironic, not sarcastic.
Great look at how the minds who run things work. I love it.
I could comment endlessly on this discussion, but I'll limit this one to noticing the seemingly oversimplified view of diplomacy and deterrence as the only possible motivational factors, and that military might would only be seen as a deterrent, rather than an aggression of some sort. Sometimes real or feigned apathy might produce better results than engagement of any type.
Apathy in this case would 100% result in China's seizure of Taiwan.
Yuppers
This is so good!
Welp. Another Shield episode, another round of sheer terror. Thanks, Ambassador, professors, et al!
The allies should stand up for Taiwan without American pressure to do so. The countries that benefit from having us at their back, need to pay it forward to Taiwan.
Although Robert Blackwill has many good points I don't agree with him completely.
First: We can't separate the economy, people's expectations, and diplomacy. We are a democracy and if the 80s gave us expectations that it is the end of civilization and we will live in peace with all the world, the voters will not support military escalation. That is what happened in the 90s. That is why the Bush administration was so severely criticized over Iraq. Now we see that the end of civilization was a false narrative and false expectation. But if any political strategist had seen it in the 90s they should explain it to the public
Second: Now I think it was a mistake to believe that we won the Cold War in the 80s. It looks like the totalitarian regimes were losing economic competition due to their intrinsic problem relative to the nature of the totalitarian regimes. They were looking for the opportunity to evolve economically keeping the oligarchical nature of their society. Reaganomics gave them this opportunity. We were under the false impression that they would become democratic.
Third: Democratic ideas are crucial to our progress and our security. Nobody would give a dime for defense if it was not for our freedom and our interests. That was under question lately. That is why the idea of less military spending was so popular everywhere. If China is moving to democracy, then why can't we be friends, there are no antagonistic problems, and everything could be solved with diplomacy. If China is a totalitarian state that is trying to make our democracy weaker, then it is a different story.
I think Obama's foreign policy was not hawkish enough. But, again, that is the result of all the expectations of a peaceful future.
Really appreciate this summary of the consequences of disconnected global initiatives & decisions via the fed & military aiming with little to no regard to context or continuity. Especially via this sage panel of gentlemen ❤
So heartbreakingly unfortunately reactive results the siloed leadership netted, with or without intent.
Regardless, keep the faith ❤ 🇺🇸 10 years is nominal in relation especially to a historically proven united spirit, incepted for the good of all
Mr. Cohen's pessimistic analysis seems depressingly accurate. No amount of diplomacy will change the trajectory. Like Putin, Xi is tying a desire for immortality to expansion of empire.
How many wars has China fought in the last 20 years? U S interventions are numerous and growing
Agreed 100% we do need to increase defense spending, good show!
Maybe by a bit, but I'd argue we need to change what we're spending those defense dollars on more than increase the funding. We have too many other things that the federal budget needs to go towards in addition to defense spending. So unless the fed is going to raise taxes, increasing defense spending any appreciable amount is going to be tricky.
We already spend more and have the most bloated military budget without audits. Taxpayers are getting gouged by fewer contractors. The MIC is now just a handful of contractors.
Hillsdale College 👎🏼
I must say, Blackwell pulls off the Tony Montana look quite well?🤔
Interesting topic
What are the compromises that could be made with China?
Benedict Arnold maligned himself by turning. Brilliant commander, self-centered egotist.
we could really go for a “Pivot to America” strategy
Errr.... We were trying to come out of the Great Recession. The economy was the focus. It wasn't until Obama was in his last year in office until the economy felt recovered.
These guys seem to have forgotten had the second Iraqi war started.
For those who support an anti-imperialist foreign policy, "Shield of the Republic" is an invaluable know-your-enemy resource. The talking heads here are despicable, and some of them should be on trial in The Hague
I clicked on this video knowing I would be disappointed that it had nothing to do with the Fallout game or TV series. 😅
Please consider doing a series of reaction videos to the TV show. 😂
Communed with the spirit of Benedict Arnold? Do tell...
How much we lost when TPP was ditched?
Labor laws, environmental regulation, monetary policy. Omfg what a loss.
The invasion of Iraq was a "grand strategy," Blackwill. Jfc, maybe grand strategies suck.🤷
The longest introduction in history!
I thought he said 2010 and the Trump administration. I am so confused.
He meant the 2010's as in the whole decade from 2010 to 2019.
Boring podcast
Thanks for your contribution.
@@Brent233somebody had to say it.