I would say in so far as one considers the overall question of who's interests are being served in the greater middle east, while clearly up until the 1960's or so, there was a favorable attitude towards Israel as a strong proxy in resistance to Communism , it could be seen as a secondary.

A fascinating book on neoconservative political though, Leo Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli", pointed out that among what we would today identify as neoconservatives, they should endeavor to gain and keep literary and ideological influence in the US political structure.

Strauss makes a second major (although very obscurant) observation that given the Western penchant for representative government, if one really wants to lead, the "best" form of representative democracy is in fact totalitarian democracy, whereby people elect a leadership, but that leadership effectively has absolute power, during it's tenure.

Even a cursory reading of constitutional writings makes it pretty abundantly clear, this vision is not exactly what the founders had envisioned, and in fact can be seen as highly incompatible with the original intent of US constitutional processes.

Neoconservatives, however, during the later years of the 1960's (and this is a FASCINATING observation made by many early neoconservatives), especially after the 1967 days war and the attack on the USS Liberty, it became increasingly clear to Irving Krystol and others that polemic influence was rapidly declining as the "left" in the United States became increasingly difficult to gain reliable outputs from the political process ;Representative "Scoop" Jackson was being investigated for espionage, the Viet Nam anti-war movement was in full swing, and it was unclear the "left" would long remain uncritical of Israeli political/military positions, indefinitely)

So the notion to "switch" political affiliation started ,and astutely re-ordered itself slowly becoming rhetorically reflective of and ultimately part and parcel of the conservative movement - which was seen as far more capable of being managed rhetorically.

More painful to read was that what neoconservatism should do, first and foremost is decide what is wanted, and disregard the practical considerations , or reasons one might not want to do such a thing; this is a tragic element of neoconservatism since it encourages the political class to disregard the well being of any host society and perform at some political 'id' level of functioning - effectively giving philosophical sanction to sociopathy - that makes Ayn Rand look positively generative by comparison.

In this way we can attribute the decline of "realpolitik" to the political maneuverings and ascent of neoconservatism within the Reagan administration, ultimately consigning that political tradition to the last holders of those political views in the 1990's , (Schultz, Bush Sr, Scowcroft even Kissinger were marginalized)

Today we see this in the preposterous ideological stances of some Israeli leaders (Avi Lieberman for example) proposes that non-loyal Jews (and of course all Arabs/Sephardi) be required to take loyalty tests or be "relocated", how one fails or passes a loyalty test and when the disloyal Israeli citizen is relocated is not mentioned. More perverse is the notion of racial purity gangs sprouting up, that are not actively discouraged. That said, I'm not Israeli, these days, if they want to setup racial purity laws, or ethnically houseclean, it's not my concern, although history clearly shows that ultimately it does become our concern eventually (honestly, who in the US, wants to end up on the wrong side of another Apartheid argument).

In US politics, you get the notion of constant warfare, I dislike the polemic of Chomsky on this point but do find that there is a very strong element of don't ask whether it's in the interests of the United States, but rather ask whether it is in the interests of these ideologues and then push hard for whatever it is.

This operates in concert with the overall feeling of some in the US oriented political class that military might is the signature element of US power, rather than taking the traditional / historical view (Paul Kennedy makes this case in his excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" , that military power is a direct consequence of economic power, and that confusing the two / or failure to reconcile the relation has repeatedly lead to the self-destruction of more than one economic power in the past.

So it is for that reason , pretty much alone, that the United States, does very well for itself by constraining it's military expeditions to those which are strictly necessary and similarly keeping military and other social support expenditures well below our means if we mean to persist as a functional nation-state.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" makes a grand statement about US presence and influence in the US, but does so in a surprisingly insightful way, it's an excellent counterpoint to alot of the geopolitical views that hold sway today, covering many of the same problems, but with a more US centered focus.

In recent readings, I think one of my favorite books on the subject was a short and easy read by Donald Kagan "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace", or , both of which basically lays out the notion (although he NEVER states as much for obvious reasons), that US military dominance implies a duty to preserve US interests in the Eurasian sphere of influence, limiting the ascent of China and dominance of Russia.

Most of these positions are entirely counter to the positions taken historically in the US, and more disturbingly they are directly counter to the actions and policies of all of the major developed nations (Japan, Germany, England, France) which 40 years ago, made coherent energy ,infrastructure and industrial policies that slowly moved their nation-states away from oil, and the geopolitical instability of the Middle East.

More damningly I think this political worldview, rather abruptly disrupted, our educational system, both at the liberal arts and especially the scientific level;

There is a peculiar animus towards scientists who can counter the political views of absolutism, one of the best examples of this was very early on when Richard Perle got shut-down, from his hard-line and openly discredited idea that the Soviet Union was "breaking" US / USSR arms treaty conditions, here a knowledgeable expert destroyed Perle in a public forum, especially as the 1980's continued.

It was possible to see the vast efficiencies of computers and later communications (ultimately leading to the internet in later years), but these innovations are the legacy of the R&D and generous funding of the late 1950's and 1960's, today rather than innovate and engineer around the economic & resource constraints in our economy, we shuffle money around and hope someone else clever comes up with ideas.

Ultimately, however the sad tale ends up in the actions that warranted the removal from office of most of the political operatives and strong ideological advocates of neoconservativsm in the United States military / civilian establishment, in 2003-4, when FBI (CIA and DIA conducted similar investigations internally) all started to determine independently, that US interests, were not just being poorly served, but in fact were undermined, forcing the Bush administration to remove or allow to retire almost all of the major players, although , the damage was done, the US had overthrown the Iraqi leadership by this time.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and less successfully against Iran by stove-piping questionable information to the US administration, and in some cases there was evidence of at the very least questionable and arguably treasonous actions undertaken by some elements of the political/military administration under the Bush administration.

Personally, I found the investigation and continued influence of these guys totally disheartening, and it has made me very apathetic to continued US involvement in the Middle East whatsoever.

It seems simply far more logical , and in concert with our longer term interests, to just load up on static energy production - solar, thermal, wind , "cleaner" coal, and just do whatever is possible to maintain a small footprint in the region, and re-establish our governmental educational/industrial/military trajectory from - what - a generation ago?

Learning about the EU is a very complicated topic, and it really depends on what topic areas you want to learn about and how far you're willing to go. It's a very complicated mess of exceptions.

---

A Brief History

The project of European integration started in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris, setting up the European Coal & Steel Community. Basically, it was intended to put issues relating to the production of coal and steel under a supranational authority (High Authority) and make it so France and Germany were so integrated in this field that going to war would be virtually impossible, whether they wanted to or not. It set up a High Authority, a Common Assembly, a Court of Justice and a Council of Ministers.

In 1957, the 6 founding countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) then set up the European Economic Community (the single market) & the European Atomic Energy Communities via the Treaties of Rome which were supposed to create a single market by integrating the countries economically and the handling of atomic energy specifically. These shared the Common Assembly and court of the ECSC, but not the Commission and Council (there were 3 separate Commissions and Councils for each "community").

In 1965, the 6 countries agreed to merge the 3 separate communities into 1 via the Merger Treaty. The 3 communities were still legally separate, but they had the same Commission and Council overseeing them. This was the birth of the "European Communities".

In 1970, the Treaty of Luxembourg gave the Parliament its first real powers over budgetary matters. The Parliament could reject so-called "non-compulsory" spending.

In 1973, the first Community enlargement took place, when Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland joined. In 1981, Greece then joined. The 3rd expansion then followed in 1986, when Portugal and Spain joined.

In 1975, the Treaty of Brussels gave the Parliament the power to reject the budget as a whole for the first time, and set up the European Court of Auditors (which audits the EU budget yearly).

In 1979, the first elections to the European Parliament took place, which the Treaty of Rome had provided for. They have been held every 5 years since then (the next election is in 2019).

In 1986, the Single European Act was signed, with a primary aim of completing the "Single Market" by 1993. It gave the European Parliament more power by making enlargement and association agreements require EP consent to come into force, and it gave the EP minor power on some proposed laws via the "cooperation" procedure, though the Council could overrule the Parliament.

In 1990, the Schengen Agreement abolished internal border controls between Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany, though this wasn't part of the EU legal framework at the time.

In 1992, the Maastrict Treaty was signed, which established the "European Union" as it's now known, giving the EU more powers in certain areas, and it led to the process that created the euro. It also expanded the Parliament's power. The "co-decision" procedure was introduced to some areas, meaning the Council and Parliament now legislated on an equal footing for those areas and laws required the approval of both to come into effect.

In 1995, the EU was enlarged again, when Finland, Austria and Sweden joined, bringing the EU up to 15 members.

In 1998, the Amsterdam Treaty was signed, which expanded the "co-decision" procedure to more laws. It also brought the Schengen Agreement under the EU framework.

In 2002, the Nice Treaty was then signed, with a view of reforming the internal structures of the EU so it would be ready for a large expansion just a few years later. This again extended the EP's powers.

In 2004, the EU had its largest expansion yet, adding 10 members (Cyprus, Malta, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia).

In 2005, the Constitution for Europe was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands. It was supposed to incorporate all Treaties into 1 Constitution and gave the EU more powers.

In 2007, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, making it the EU27. The Lisbon Treaty was also signed that year, which formed the EU as a separate legal personality and expanded the EU's powers even more. It also expanded the Parliament's power, giving it "co-decision" (now known as the 'ordinary legislative procedure) over most laws, and EP consent was required for virtually all international agreements.

In 2013, Croatia joined the Union, bringing the EU up to its current 28 member states.

In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union by 52-48, which it is currently in the process of doing.

In 2017, 60 years after the Treaties of Rome were signed, the current Commission started a debate on the Future of Europe, which is still ongoing and is expected to go on until 2019, right after the UK leaves the EU and right before the 2019 Parliament elections.

---

The Institutions

The European Commission is the closest to an executive of the institutions. It is made up of 28 Commissioners, one from each member state, and is supposed to represent the overall interests of the EU. It proposes almost all laws, and it monitors the application of law in the EU to make sure it's all being followed.

The European Council is the body where heads of state/government (e.g. Merkel, Macron) meet at least 4 times a year to tackle the most politically difficult questions. It sets the overall political direction of the EU, but it's not a body that decides on legislation.

The Council of the EU (Council of Ministers) is comprised of government ministers from the 28 member states, split into 10 different configarations. Justice ministers will meet in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, for example, while foreign ministers meet in the Foreign Affairs Council. It represents the views of the governments, and it decides on EU legislation and the EU's foreign policy.

The European Parliament is directly elected every 5 years by the voters of Europe, and it supposed to represent them. It decides on most, but not all, EU legislation. It has committees and plenary sessions.

The European Central Bank is where the monetary policy of the Eurozone is conducted, among other things, with its primary aim being price stability in the Eurozone (inflation rate close to but below 2%).

The Court of Justice of the EU obviously rules on disputes between institutions and member states, as well as whether certain EU laws are compatible with the Treaties. National courts also can ask the CJEU to intepret EU law when it affects a national case.

Finally, the European Court of Auditors is the body that audits the EU's spending each year and makes sure it's spent correctly/not wasted. It works with the European Parliament to scrutinise the Commission here.

---

How the Parliament "Works" (Basically)

Direct election are held every 5 years in each member state. There is a cap of 751 MEPs, with member states having at least 6 (e.g. Malta) and no more than 96 (e.g. Germany). Elections to the Parliament have to use some form of proportional system.

National parties affiliate themselves to European parties. For example, Angela Merkel's CDU is part of the European People's Party, which then form groups at the European level (the EPP Group in the European Parliament, for example).

The current composition of Parliament is:

• European People's Party (centre-right, pro-EU): 214
  
• Progressive Alliance of Socialist and Democrats (Centre-left, pro-EU): 189
  
• European Conservatives and Reformists (right wing, somewhat Eurosceptic): 74
  
• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (centre, pro-EU): 68
  
• Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left (quite left wing, somewhat Eurosceptic): 52
  
• Greens/European Free Alliance (left wing, pro-EU): 51
  
• Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (quite right wing, Eurosceptic): 41
  
• Europe of Nations and Freedom (quite right wing, Eurosceptic): 40
  
• Non-Attached (no European party): 18
  
  For the vast majority of EU laws, the "ordianry legislative proceedure" is followed. This means that both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament co-legisislate on an equal basis, after a proposal from the Commission. They both have to agree on a text for a law to come into force, and both can reject said proposals should they so wish. For more info, check here.
  
  Other EP powers include:
  
  
• Having to consent to the conclusion of intentional agreements (e.g. the CETA trade deal between Canada and the EU couldn't have come into effect without EP consent)
  
• Being a joint budgetary arm of the EU, making decisions on the yearly EU budget on an equal level with the Council of Ministers
  
• Electing the Commission President, and having to confirm the entire College of Commissioners (like a Cabinet) before it takes office
  
• Being able to remove (censure) the Commission at any point during its office (this was nearly done to the Santer Commission in 1999, but it resigned before that could happen)
  
• Normal scrutiny work of the Commission and Council, tabling written/oral questions, scrutiny by committees/reports etc.
  
  ---
  

  For More Detail
  

  
  

• EP Factsheets
  
• A Concise Introduction to the European Union
  
• Wikipedia
  
  The New European Union series are quite good generally, but a lot are tailored for those doing study at University rather than for more 'casual' reading.
  
  If you're confused about anything, want any more detail, feel free to ask!

I've got to say, I would very much discourage people from trying to read the early books on geopolitics, or any subject, for that matter.

Those books are aimed at people who are already academics and who lived in a vastly different world, with vastly different cultural references and ways of speaking to us.

The elements of Sea Power is a a great example of this. Was it hugely influential in the early 20th century? Yes! It hugely influenced Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policies in the USA as well as Bismarck in Germany.

But all you actually need to know about the book is its basic premise, i.e. that navel power is the ultimate way to ensure independent and even global dominance. You don't need to know the specifics, because that view of geopolitics very quickly becomes outdated. I mean, for starters, this book was written before the invention of planes. That revolutionised the way power is exercised and very quickly naval power become relatively unimportant in comparison to one's ability to control land instead of sea. That's why we call this geopolitics, and not waterpolitics or something like it. This lecture on 'what is geopolitics?' goes into more detail.

---

But surely I'm just criticising for criticism's sake? Not at all. I'll offer an alternative.

I think that you should start not by reading the early books, but by reading introductory books. I actually think that this lecture I linked is a pretty good introduction to a lot of core themes. But that's not really enough. So more what I think you should look for are things entitled 'introduction to:..." and also just general text books. For instance, I have one on my shelf called 'The Globalization of World Politics' by Baylis et al. It's a good book. Andrew Heywood's 'World Politics' is also quite good.

Reach the relevant chapters and then go from there. Every chapter will include either references or a 'further reading' list (or both). Baylis's book is good because it provides a pretty good description of each of the books in the further reading list at the end of every chapter and what its useful for. So you can read a chapter on Neorealist approaches to International Relations and from there it will direct you to other interesting geopolitical figures, including Kenneth Waltz, who's probably the main guy you should read if you want to understand conventional geopolitics and international relations, as it is practiced by most (western) governments (although whether or not conventional IR theory is good or not is another question which you will undoubtedly learn more about if you look into these text books).

---

edit; apart from that, good post. Especially the recommendations about reading widely and especially about the recommendation to read authors who do not consider themselves to be security studies or international relations analysts.

I think that The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a really neat book. This is somewhat unrelated to your niche, and some of you guys have heard me speak about this on IRC. I have no education in International Relations and a high school education in history, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it really does a good job at explaining ambitions that underpin nations foreign policy and what causes them to have such ambitions. It's certainly not a perfect book, but it does a good job at explaining a staunchly, sobering realist theory of international relations. One reviewer puts it this way, "I found the book an enjoyable read but Mearsheimer has a surprisingly superficial grasp of world history. However, he does provide a helpful explanation of American foreign policy over the past 200 years." That's important to know before digging into this book, and it's also important to know that John is very staunchly realist. In my own opinion, I think realism is a very good theory, but it also assumes (again, my uneducated opinion) that (like with books like the Dictators Handbook) that leaders are psychopaths with no emotions. That ideology doesn't play a role on some level in decision making. That foreign policy is entirely predicated around protecting a nation.

I'd like to hear /u/Fresh-Snows thoughts on it. He studies international relations extensively from what I've heard. He could offer an interesting opinion.

Also, Ender in Exile is a very good book that I am currently reading. If you have read Enders Game, or of Scott Cards books on the Ender universe in general, I highly suggest picking up this book.

This is United Front in action - China's self-described "magic weapon", a special unit of it's government working to influence Western perception.
The Financial Times had a great article on it, here.


>This has given a boost to United Front efforts to woo overseas Chinese. Even though more than 80 per cent of around 60m overseas Chinese have taken on the citizenship of more than 180 host countries, they are still regarded as fertile ground by Beijing. “The unity of Chinese at home requires the unity of the sons and daughters of Chinese abroad,” says the teaching manual.

>It recommends a number of ways in which United Front operatives should win support from overseas Chinese. Some are emotional, stressing “flesh and blood” ties to the motherland. Others are ideological, focusing on a common participation in the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese people”. But mainly they are material, providing funding or other resources to selected overseas Chinese groups and individuals deemed valuable to Beijing’s cause.


There's also a new book all about China's attempts to influence Canada, called Claws of the Panda.

[edit: quote boxes]

>Make note, I'm just a high schooler. I don't have any significant experience in academic IR studies, and I get most of my information from books, magazines, and journals. To be honest, I'm a little fuzzy on theory


I was the same in high school, trying to self-teach. If you have the opportunity to take a college intro-IR course it clears up sooo much. If you did it like me, you are teaching yourself out of order and context, and in a way that biases strongly towards some things and not others. Anyway, if you can't take an organized class, try to pick up a book on theory and that starts at the basics. I haven't read it yet, but if you like Realism then The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is supposedly excellent. Likewise, The End of History is the go-to Liberal book. Haven't read that either yet, so someone correct me if I'm way off-base with these recommendations. There's also Constructivism as the new thing, but I'm not really familiar with it. Anyways, getting theories down more helps a ton, it definitely changed my views on whether or not certain wars were good/bad ideas. But from your post you seem to have a good grasp on things, so IDK if this advice will help that much.


(^ this isn't related to your question, I just thought it might be helpful)


Anyways your question is basically Liberal Vs Realist it seems. A liberal of the Neoconservative (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, ect.) branch would say Saddam violated the liberal order first, and now the newly democratic Iraq has removed the threat. Iraq will join the other democracies and only attack dictators til there are none left and we have world peace. (this is really dumbed down, but you get the point)



Other less militaristic liberals (the Clintons, Woodrow Wilson especially) would say that that was an expected occasional break-down in the liberal order, and that liberal institutions for the most part prevent this sort of thing from happening more often, as it would if there was no UN or WTO ect. In their eyes, if Bush were ever put to international court and tried then it would be proof of the liberal order's success. The liberal order includes international free trade, which liberals say makes war unprofitable, and so they say, unlikely.


Realists (George HW Bush, Nixon, Kissinger) would agree with your middle paragraph, that the 'global order' is a manifestation of American hegemony, and that liberal institutions are set up to maximally benefit the USA, which is why other powers become revisionists; Iran/China/Russia does not feel it benefits from a US-led order (the WTO, World Bank, ect), and wants to set up an new order that maximizes their own power instead.


So its depends on who you ask, there is no real consensus here. For what its worth, I think you are dead on about the 'liberal order' really being the 'American order', and like you said, its mostly been a good thing.

Right, but the principle is the same. Flynn visited Russia as a private citizen who was a fan of Putin. He consulted with Trump because they both see America's role in the world similarly. Manafort never worked for Putin but for a Putin-backed leader in Ukraine. He got the gig with Trump through mutual friend Roger Stone. Trump, Flynn, and Manafort probably all share a similar view on Russia, and had Trump never run for office and you asked all three in 2017 they probably all would share the same view, and it's the view I have as well. Putin is a strong man, he's a killer no doubt, but that's none of our business really in an "America First" oriented foreign policy. The opposite of this kind of non-interference is quite clearly seen in the meddling our country was involved in in Ukraine in 2014. Before that our relations with Russia were good publicly. We played games behind the scenes as part of a Grand Chessboard
Eurasian strategy and of course Putin fought back. He's not dumb, he knows what's going on just like we do. He knows we tried the same shenanigans in Syria after the Arab Spring (which likely was real). When he saw Obama wasn't going to go beyond proxy war there he stepped in and mopped up our little operation and that's when he became "a thug, a killer, a dictator" according to McCain and Rubio and Rachel Maddow and all the rest, when he never changed for 16 years and they couldn't care less the first 15 years.

So for whatever reason Flynn and Manafort are former Establishment types who left or were ousted from the inner circles but they know all the games going on against Russia. They let Putin know, look if Trump gets in office we're ending these spy games and proxy wars. We're going to stop pushing NATO into aggressive postures on your doorstep. We're going to take off sanctions. Rather than good vs bad, a more realistic view of foreign policy is to see different power groups vying for position. The sitiuation we have now is men in the white house who understand the real situation and the players and the games, but who are free agents. That's why the establishment has been so freaked out ever since it was clear Trump could win through to today. Because Flynn, Bannon, Trump, et al are really free agents who've somehow gained the controls of state and aren't interested in using America as a battering ram against the few rogue states still holding out from Anglo American domination, or using our military as a mercenary force on behalf of banks and multinationals, or completing a project of global domination. They want to discontinue all that and instead direct that energy towards making America Great Again for its own citizens. That is their great crime.

It's one of their biases, though it's not anti-china as much as its not pushing to legitimize China's claims on the East Asian Sea/South China Sea. But save that comment for later this week, as I'll post a (hopefully on monthly or bi-monthly basis) discussion Friday regarding critical analysis of a certain publication/source's short-sight and biases. From there we would cycle through the most common publications posted, offering great opportunities to pool our communal perspectives (Fact-check, etc).

On on a more abstract level publication like "the Diplomat" do provide is an interesting case study of soft power projection from the broader American-lead consensus relating to foreign policy (aka current alliance orientations). Though using words like alliance may sound like 19th anachronism, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the highly influencial book The Grand Chessboard. Terminology he puts forth is often used, particularly as a lens of analysis in the recent Crimean Crisis. Anyways, he describes Japan's role in the US grand strategy as a "vassal". So that might be a rough and ready reason for the publication's particular thematic choices.

Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski

George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.

If I think of more I'll post 'em.

aaaaah, le reddit "UAE is SHIT" circlejerk.

Where to start:

preface: I lived in the UAE for 3 years.

>Palpable lack of freedoms.


Day to day living there is really no different from living in Europe.
In the UAE you can't insult the religion or the country, In Germany you can't display Nazi signs or the Hitler Salute. In most of Europe you cannot deny the holocaust.

There are curbs on freedom in most civilized countries.

Where I would agree would be the lack of freedom of the presses and the restrictions on media.

> Restrictions on alcohol

Alcohols sales are restricted in every country on earth.



Sweden, has some of the strongest alcohol restrictions, and the USA restricts its sale to those over 21.

You can literally join the military, fight, kill, and die for your country; many years before you can purchase alcohol.

In the UAE alcohol is available, very, fucking, widely, in bars and clubs and licenced shops (and even in illegal bootleg deliveries to your appartment)

>restrictions on eating during Ramadan

This is true that you cannot eat IN PUBLIC in hours of sunlight, for 1 month of a year.

The vast majority of restaurants remain open and simply put up screens on the doors and windows.
You can eat inside any of the restaurants, or any other private place.


>Absolute imposition of their beliefs on all people.

You mean aside from the multiple churches and temples?
There is a HUGE christian population in the UAE.
Many, many, of the workers you encounter will be Christian, or Buddhist. Not to mention that there are also a large community of Shia mulsims in the UAE...

The UAE is not Saudi Arabia...

> perhaps the most tolerant and westernized Muslim country in the world

It's a great place to live, but it is not the most tolerant and Westernized Muslim country in the world...
Even suggesting this loses you a lot of credit and makes me realise you don't know much about the Islamic world.
Try: Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Tunisa...

>I take for granted the freedoms I have

This I can fully relate to.
Having lived in countries that do not enjoy the same level of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of congregation, etc.. I do appreciate more the rights that I have in the West.
But most of your argument on this is factually wrong, and misguided.

 

TL;DR##

The UAE has it's faults, and there are less freedoms of political conscious and expression than countries in the west, but "restrictions on alcohol" and "Not eating in Ramadan" they most certainly are not.

I would suggest anyone looking for more information, may well wish to check out: After the Sheikhs: The coming collapse of the Gulf Monarchies
It's an insightful read into the political situation of the whole Gulf region.

As you said you saw the usual classics I'll skip over Hayek, Hazlett, Milton Freedman, Orwell, ect

1.A very interesting read on America's Economic History. Not econ theory, this is the history of our economy crushing it for over 200 years. Will give you the faith that America's best days are always ahead of us as long as we remain capitalist :

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125

2.The best book on Foreign Policy I've ever read. It's a realist take on internation affairs which is what we are finally back to under this admin.

Nation's will work in thier own self interest, armies need to take territory to win wars, you need a great economy to have a great military, China must be confronted, ect:

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

I'm going to make a plug for the wiki page on r/geopolitics. It includes books, news sources, podcasts, and other resources on international relations. Here is the link to the section on books that focus on general concepts of international relations, foreign policy, and geopolitics.

---

If you are completely new to the field of IR, begin by reading Jack Snyder's article "One World, Rival Theories". It is a little dated, but it provides a sound overview of the field of international relations, the three primary paradigms of IR, and some examples of practitioners of those paradigms. Alternatively, if you wish to spend a little money, read Dan Drezner's Theories of International Politics and Zombies. It's a more relaxed and humorous introduction into IR and the predominant elements of the field through the lens of a global zombie threat.

You can also watch the London School of Economics and Political Science's video International Relations: An Introduction. It's about 10 minutes long and partially an advertisement for the university, but it provides a very simple overview of IR. If you wish to watch something longer and more in-depth, William Spaniel created a International Relations 101 playlist with videos that deal with individual aspects of IR. If you decide to watch it, do it in order so that you do not get overwhelmed by the more interesting-sounding (but much more complex) videos.

Since you are interested in the political psychology of IR, I would recommend starting with Graham Allison's Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. The book examines the three levels of decision-making within a country in regards to international affairs: the government level, the organizational level (e.g. different government agencies), and the individual level (e.g. the President, the Secretary of State, Congressmen). It then provides this analysis within the context of the Cuban Missile Crisis and how analysis of the decisions of the United States and Soviet Union can be viewed very differently by examining each of the three levels. The book is basically required reading for all students of IR, or at least it should be.

Additionally, read Thomas C. Schelling's Arms and Influence. The book examines the various ways in which military capabilities (real or imagined) are used as bargaining power in international relations. It deals with a lot of the psychological elements at play in IR.

Finally, I also recommend Robert Jervis's Perception and Misperception in International Politics. This book examines how a decision-maker's perception of the world and their perception of other international actors can diverge from reality in noticeable patterns that can be detected and for reasons that can be comprehended. Essentially, it examines why political leaders make the decisions that they make.

Hah, it is hard to point at a particular book. International Relations Theories is something I remember reading during our courses.

Regarding the actual key books of particular thinkers to these fields, and basically the roots of many of the streams, here are some well known:

Realism: Morgenthau - Politics Among Nations

Liberalism: Angell - The Great Illusion

neo-Realism: Waltz - Theory of International Politics

neo-Liberalism: Keohane - After Hegemony

Constructivism: Wendt - Social Theory of International Politics

If you were to read them, I would suggest reading them in that order.

There are of course many more and some would likely pest me for omitting other books. And I haven't even mentioned/included all the streams. The field of International Relations is basically concentrated around "the great debates" of various streams on various issues. There are other fascinating books but I think that these in particular have some special weight in it. In fact, if you wanted, I still have somewhere the list of the required readings for our Theories course, with the main streams and a few books to each to get the gist of it.

Also another thing that might help you understand the issues better is to check out the history of 19th/20th century. Doesn't have to be in-depth. Funnily enough, even with these books the context is important. Or at least revealing. When the books were written, what happened during that time, what inspired these books. Much of the IR field was influenced by historical events.

It is going to depend upon definition. Within political science, neoliberalism absolutely exists as one of the major branches of IR theory. For the philosophical origins, read Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, as many of the ideas that Kant discusses helped to form a foundation for later authors. To dig into Neoliberalism itself, the best place to start is with Keohane and Nye's Power & Interdependence and After Hegemony by just Keohane. In the first, they argue effectively that the 9/11 problem (the situation whereby states do not have any higher authority beyond themselves to police one another) is solved by strong international institutions that can take the form of a peacekeeping apparatus, the spread of democracy as democracies don't seem to fight one another, and expanding trade as increased trade between states causes an increased cost going to war (namely, the loss of that trade). These things create structures which allow state behavior to be seen as more consistent and therefore, more easy to calculate and expect behavior. In such a system, states do not have to be as concerned with their survival as Realists would argue. In the second, he argues that these international institutions can eventually take on a life of their own after a hegemon has set them up, as there would be sufficient interest of all states involved in the system to keep it going.

So the ideas of Neoliberalism are clearly there and well established. However, it isn't so much whether these exist as much as whether this theoretical framework is better than its competitors at explaining the international system as we observe it unfolding. Other schools of thought would probably say that neoliberalism is insufficient for explaining all of the international system for one reason or another, just as neoliberalism would defend itself as well as say the others are also insufficient.

Which brings us back to the beginning, what is meant by it existing? It at least exists as a major branch of thought in international relations.

This is the usual place to start: 1953 Iranian coup d'état

> The 1953 Iranian coup d'état occurred on August 19, 1953. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown by forces loyal to the Shah, and coordinated by British and American intelligence services.

Tip of the iceberg, really. WWI also had an oil & middle east component, but that was more Great Britain than America per se.

The current situation is best described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard, IMO.

A book recommendation for you: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer builds up a clear argument, with analysis of historical relevance stretching from Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany up to the modern United States.

His view is arguably colored by his assumptions about International Politics. However, the author makes this clear in the first few chapters, explaining his theory of Offensive Realism. It is at the same time a logically understandable and depressing view of the interaction of states.

The book finishes with a chapter wherein it is predicted that the rise of China is unlikely to be peaceful. There also are suggestsions of strategies for the U.S. to deal with this change in the balance of power. A clear and convincing read, highly recommended.

To give some sense of overview, there are other views of International Poltitics, this is just one of them, there is enough room to be critical. This book gets a serious debate going though, which you are looking for, reading from your post.

And since you are asking my opinion: Great Power politics are likely to trump relatively minor factors of environment and language in international relations. I assume that being the leading nation in the world means having the most power in the world. This has little to do with language and less to with environmental policy. It has everything to do with military forces, arsenals and alliances. Economic power as well, has a higher priority.

I am not saying the factors you point out are unimportant. The spread of language and the accompanying culture can be a spread of "soft power". The spread and popularity of Hollywood movies is an example of this. Many people throughout the world today speak English. But this can change. It is not hard to imagine that in three generations Chinese can have spread its influence as a language significantly.

If Chinese military and economic growth can be turned into a dominant position, other countries will study its culture in order to court and befriend it and hopefully benefit from associating with them.

>The deal wasn't there to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons because any country can do that with enough enrichment process. What the deal was to delay Iran from creating a nuclear weapon for 10 years at MINIMUM with a massive possibility to that continuing towards the future.

Theres no way the deal will continue to be upheld once iran has developed the capability to produce a weapon. It makes zero sense from any strategic point of view. They will have a massively improved position in terms of leverage and they will use it. To think otherwise is extraordinarily naive.

>Iran doesn't want sanctions or a weak economy, they are willing to put away a nuclear weapon (if they wanted to make one) and improve their own country.

Iran is not giving up on a nuclear weapon. They simply are unable to make one now. Theyre giving up a bunch of damaged centrifuges and under enriched uranium for economic relief. Turning wasted sunk cost into gain.

>Research/upgrading facilities/development of ballistic missiles have nothing to do with a nuclear weapon.

Edit: thats an actual sub for a diff purpose lol.

Yeah no, that doesnt pass the common sense test.

>If you compare a nuclear weapon against a missile that can be shot down, I would say a nuclear weapon is better to avert.

Have you not paid attention to the last 70 years? Ballistics and nuclear weapons go hand in hand. Its the only way countries that are not the US can project force. Its the only way Iran would ever be able to use the weapon as a deterrent.

>The US decided to put sanctions on their ballistic missiles program when EU decided not to with other countries deciding the same.

Its to the EUs strategic advantage to trade with Iran and diversify its oil suppliers. Its to the USs strategic advantage to not have a hostile nuclear power in the region that advocates for the destruction of itself and its allies.

>The deal was a success and was one of the best foreign agreements in the century.

Iran and the EU tangibly benefit, the USs position is weakened and Obama/Kerry pat themselves on the back for some symbolic victory. The deal is only a success if youre not the US.

>You brought the EU/Russia/China/US to a fucking agreement that took YEARS in the making and we have orange head come and tear it apart. I honestly suggest everyone here to read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dealbreaker-Donald-Trump-Unmaking-Nuclear/dp/0999874756

He was able to tear it up because the US never ratified it. It wasnt binding. I dont need to read someone elses opinions on the facts, ive read the deal itself and i know who stands to gain what.

> like Chomsky but I caught him in an outright lie in a video the other day.

Focus on the facts, everything else is irrelevant, people are not perfect. If we demanded perfection from ourselves we'd see we are just flawed as anyone else. Right now the rich and corporations have basically undermined the rule of law and are afraid of people waking up and challenging their power, I know you don't like Chomsky, so a word from super capitalist empire man himself. Zbignew brezisnki:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

His wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

A good book he wrote to help you understand world affairs:

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

📅 2018-04-23 ⏰ 20:11:03 (UTC)

>The man has lips. 👄

>The man has smize. 👀

>The man could be on Cycle 25. 📺

> 

>The man is @RonanFarrow and he’s both brilliant and beautiful. 💛

> 

>Get his book 📚: https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106/

>#WarOnPeace

>— Tyra Banks ✅ (@tyrabanks)

>🔁️ 22 💟 268



📷 image



 

^(I'm a bot and this action was done automatically)

I would also recommend The Globalization of World Politics as an introductory text to the field. It's an absolutely phenomenal textbook, while summaries you've posted are indeed comprehensive and succinct.

To elaborate, with more comprehensive texts (should the OP choose to read them), IR is a broad field. But specifically regarding International Politics, I would recommend Nye's The Future of Power, as a current perspective on international power (and the fairly recent differentiation in power resources, eg. "hard" and "soft" power). Focusing specifically on International Politics (as opposed to other IR subfields like development), the seminal works for the current theories on international politics include:


Theory of International Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz (1979), which serves as the foundation for structural realist (or neorealist) school. Neorealists are generally split between offensive realists (like Mearsheimer) and defensive realists (Waltz and Walt) as general categorizations, and you can find related works from these scholars for a focused view from either on the issues they disagree upon.

After Hegemony (1984) by Robert Keohane is the neoliberal institutionalist response to Waltz (Power and Interdependence by Keohane & Nye (1977) is probably its founding text), and one of the leading works of the theoretical field itself.

Finally, Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt (1999) is the comprehensive overview of the social constructivist school.

These largely cover all the major theoretical branches of current International Political theory (without diverging too heavily into IR subfields), though I do emphasize that these classifications are fairly fluid, given the readiness of offensive realists like Mearsheimer to look into the "black box" of domestic politics in the (highly controversial) piece, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Again, these are the main theoretical works in these respective schools, and it is not necessary for you (the OP) to read through all of them to understand the subject.

While not exclusively International Politics focused, World Systems Theory is highly influential critical theory for IR studies, and understanding it (and Marxist-influenced dependency theory) as well as game theory (Nash Equilibrium etc) are both integral to modern IR methodologies and theories. By in large, Hobbes and the Leviathan (and a bit of Rousseau) is the only political theory that you need to start delving into IR theory, so you should be good on that front.

There are also specialized and diversified IR fields such as Development, Peace and Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights, but those are most likely not necessary given the scope of your conference (by the sounds of it, predominantly focused on state-centric International Politics).

> Thanks for the links, there is some that I couldn't say I know about so will take a look.

Basically the rich are worried the average everyday joe will wake up to the fact governments never worked for the people, aka they don't work for us, hence the spying. They are afraid that one day the average person might get a clue politically.

See here former national security advisor of the united states:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY


The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/

The man in the video wrote the above book, once you read it you'll understand that it is the citizens they are worried about, which is why all states are secretly going into lockdown/military alert status and the rule of law is effectively over.

See here on the american militaries assesment of our future dystopia:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/pentagon-video-warns-of-unavoidable-dystopian-future-for-worlds-biggest-cities/

More reading:

https://williamblum.org/

Books:

• Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches - Robert Jackson, Georg Sørensen
  
• Theory of International Politics - Kenneth N. Waltz
  
• Social Theory of International Politics - Alexander Wendt
  
• Power & Independence - Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane
  
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics - John Mearsheimer
  
• Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis - Kenneth N. Waltz
  
• Contemporary Security Studies - Alan Collins et al.
  
• Security: A New Framework for Analysis - Barry Buzan et al.
  
• A History of Warfare - John Keegan
  
  News, Blogs:
  
  
• Foreign Policy
  
• Foreign Affairs
  
• The Economist
  
• CNN Security Clearance
  
• IHS Jane's
  
• International Crisis Group
  
• Stratfor
  
• Small Wars Journal
  
• Duck of Minerva
  
• The Monkey Cage
  
• Abu Muqawama
  
• Intelligence Online
  
• Zero Intelligence Agents
  
• Introduction to International Relations
  
  
  
  Think Tanks:
  
  
• RAND Corporation
  
• Center for Strategic & International Studies
  
• Chatham House
  
• Royal United Services Institute
  
• European Council on Foreign Relations
  
• International Institute for Strategic Studies
  
• Center for a New American Security
  
  Hope you'll find something interesting among these. I have put the focus on security and strategic studies because you said in another post that you have a particular interest there. Also, that's what I know best.
  
  Where are you going to study in the UK, if you want to disclose?
  
  Edit: If any of the links lead to somewhere else than the name suggests, I apologize, I have written this post at 0438 in the night. If you google, you should easily find any of the sources though.

Honestly, I haven't come across a ton of good textbooks explaining the basics of IR theory. The Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point for the big theoretical schools.

Neorealism and Its Critics is also a modern classic on IR theory you'd read in most college or graduate level IR courses. Waltz's Theory of International Relations is also a seminal text. Sam Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" Article and Book were both extremely important to recent thinking on IR.

^The linked tweet was tweeted by @tyrabanks on Apr 23, 2018 20:11:03 UTC (22 Retweets | 265 Favorites)

-------------------------------------------------

The man has lips. 👄

The man has smize. 👀

The man could be on Cycle 25. 📺



The man is @RonanFarrow and he’s both brilliant and beautiful. 💛



Get his book 📚: https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106/

#WarOnPeace

Attached photo | imgur Mirror

-------------------------------------------------

^^• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •

If you want a good grounding in European Union politics, since that is my speciality, I can help you there.

Firstly, I would avoid all of the 'airport' read books written by journalists of a particular bent pushing their narrative on today's politics or Brexit, so "All out War", etc. (This goes for whether you want more info about Westminster politics, or UK interaction with EU politics.) Whilst they may be entertaining, they're written to "push" a narrative or viewpoint of the author, and aren't meant to be neutral accounts or fact laden at all.

For EU affairs I recommend two textbooks that would be required reading for any undergraduate studying EU politics, and serve as a core quick reference texts for any postgrad looking at it too. These will help you to actually base your opinions on the EU on some core facts and/or well established arguments (something that is sorely lacking on here).

• European Union Politics (Fifth Edition) by Michelle Cini and Nieves Pérez-Solórzano Borragán
  
  
• The Government and Politics of the European Union (8th edition), The European Union Series by Neill Nugent
  
  Both of these should be fairly cheap to pick up second hand, but I do not recommend purchasing earlier versions than those I have listed, since a lot has happened in the intervening years since their previous editions were published.
  
  Both of these textbooks are laid out in a concise and simple to follow manner, with key infoboxes for further reading and detail. They both look at theories of integration (why member states chose to integrate/who are the actors), the history and evolution of the Union, and the logic behind certain policies, how its institutions operate and have evolved, how they interact with each other both in theory and practice, arguments as to what the "Union" is, and finally critiques (and counterarguments to them) of the Union and its policies.
  
  You can either read through them chapter by chapter, or keep them at hand, and when something comes up, flick through and examine them.
  
  I can recommend further text books if you so wish.
  
  Edit: PS. I see others on this post are recommending several political theory texts from 17th century authors and later. My tip is to find textbooks on political theory if that is something you want to look into. Whilst those texts are important, there are many interpretations of them and their often flowery, and to put it bluntly longwinded prose, (Hobbes taking several pages to discuss what is "power" springs to mind) can make digesting them difficult. A good textbook will digest the key arguments from political theory texts and lay them out in a nice concise manner, with critiques and counter arguments. You can then go and read the actual texts that stand out if you so wish.

Here's the thing, International Relations is all about figuring out why states act as they do, using culture as the metric misses a lot of motivation for how states interact as logical players in a somewhat anarchistic game of survival as a state.

I haven't read this book, but I've read Joesph Nye and he's also one of the standards that most IR students will end up reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Global-Conflict-Cooperation-Introduction/dp/0205851630/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I also mention Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics in another comment. It's heavily assigned and great if you loved playing Risk as a kid.
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

Yeah, but there would be different issues at play, as well. There would be the whole issue, of European states looking at one another, or one European state looking at a non-European state, (i.e. Greece and Turkey) and possibly suddenly saying to themselves "I'm actually not 100% sure about that state's future intentions. I'd better make sure I'm not a paper tiger."

Slippery slope may ensue.

And it is that - in Mearsheimer's theory, that is The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (1992). (updated edition published 2014)

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski tackles the United States grand strategy on maintaining American preeminence in the twenty-first century.

> Central to his analysis is the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass, which is home to the greatest part of the globe's population, natural resources, and economic activity. Stretching from Portugal to the Bering Strait, from Lapland to Malaysia, Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America's supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.The heart of The Grand Chessboard is Brzezinski's analysis of the four critical regions of Eurasia and of the stakes for America in each arena—Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and East Asia. The crucial fault lines may seem familiar, but the implosion of the Soviet Union has created new rivalries and new relationships, and Brzezinski maps out the strategic ramifications of the new geopolitical realities. He explains, for example: Why France and Germany will play pivotal geostrategic roles, whereas Britain and Japan will not. Why NATO expansion offers Russia the chance to undo the mistakes of the past, and why Russia cannot afford to toss this opportunity aside. Why the fate of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are so important to America. Why viewing China as a menace is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why America is not only the first truly global superpower but also the last—and what the implications are for America's legacy.

I recommend throwing 'clash of civilizations' in the trash lol :P

The thing is selectorate theory is a way of defining the structure of power. It's focus is on 'how things are', not 'how things should be', that makes it logical and not ideological. Obviously once you understand 'how things are' you can form ideas about how things can be organised to make the world better, which the book does touch on, and that would be ideological.

Acedemically you can start here. Then move onto here . then you can move onto here.

but the dictator's handbook is by far the best political science book I've ever read.

I think it's a hybrid on both what Israel and the US wants. Multinational western corporations has a huge interest in protecting the availability and resources in competition with e.g. China. A few years back I read Zbigniew Brzezinski's (Obama's dad) book "The Grand Chessboard", there he makes the case for a crucial economical, geopolitical interests (for US-EU) that is dependent on a strong Israel as a stronghold towards the new far east trading blocks.

Every American should read this book.

From Amazon:

The world is changing in ways most of us find incomprehensible. Terrorism spills out of the Middle East into Europe. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and Japan vie to see who can be most aggressive. Financial breakdown in Asia and Europe guts growth, challenging hard-won political stability.

Yet for the Americans, these changes are fantastic. Alone among the world's powers, only the United States is geographically wealthy, demographically robust, and energy secure. That last piece -- American energy security -- is rapidly emerging as the most critical piece of the global picture.

The American shale revolution does more than sever the largest of the remaining ties that bind America's fate to the wider world. It re-industrializes the United States, accelerates the global order's breakdown, and triggers a series of wide ranging military conflicts that will shape the next two decades. The common theme? Just as the global economy tips into chaos, just as global energy becomes dangerous, just as the world really needs the Americans to be engaged, the United States will be...absent.

In 2014's The Accidental Superpower, geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan made the case that geographic, demographic and energy trends were unravelling the global system. Zeihan takes the story a step further in The Absent Superpower, mapping out the threats and opportunities as the world descends into Disorder.

go_fly_a_kite: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

>is this a proxy confict with Russia?

yes

• balkanization
  
  
• detente
  
  
• realpolitik
  
  "How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
  
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

> Seems like there’s a western agenda going on here.

...as if the Communist Party of China doesn't have its own agenda vis-a-vis "the west"..??

Just watched this insightful interview with foreign correspondent and author Jonathan Manthorpe, who authored “Claws of the Panda”.

Amazon review:
> Claws of the Panda tells the story of Canada’s failure to construct a workable policy towards the People’s Republic of China. In particular the book tells of Ottawa’s failure to recognize and confront the efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate and influence Canadian politics, academia, and media, and to exert control over Canadians of Chinese heritage.

> Claws of the Panda gives a detailed description of the CCP’s campaign to embed agents of influence in Canadian business, politics, media and academia. The party’s aims are to be able to turn Canadian public policy to China’s advantage, to acquire useful technology and intellectual property, to influence Canada’s international diplomacy, and, most important, to be able to monitor and intimidate Chinese Canadians and others it considers dissidents. The book traces the evolution of the Canada-China relationship over nearly 150 years.

> It shows how Canadian leaders have constantly misjudged the reality and potential of the relationship while the CCP and its agents have benefited from Canadian naivete.

I can explain part of it. The U.S. government wants to slowly encircle China via the ME. It's two fold, oil and minerals are rich in the ME, and we get to build bases dotting the landscape over there. They plan very far out into the future and it's been evidenced in such writings as "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the writings of Carroll Quigley.


Here's an interesting interview with Quigley

http://youtu.be/OxVlBVXwU5k

>is this a proxy confict with Russia?

yes

• balkanization
  
  
• detente
  
  
• realpolitik
  
  "How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
  
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

It is fascinating.

I think the Sept. 2000 From the Wilderness article and the Sept. 2000 The Media Bypass article are the best places to start. Especially the From the Wilderness article, as the author, Michael C. Ruppert, claims to have personal knowledge of many facts and most of the players (almost all former spooks or military people).

Both of these articles also cite other sources, like Cheri Seymour's 'The Last Circle' and Ari Ben-Menashe's 'Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network'.

Of course there was the Inslaw lawsuit where I imagine one can find good information. And there were press reports about the case, including New York Times articles (the very existence of which makes me suspicious). The publicly filed documents in the case may be easily obtainable but depositions may not be public and/or may be secret.

This is the Congressional report on the Inslaw case. James Norman's article in The Media Bypass magazine also references FBI documents that were "heavily redacted" but I don't know where those can be found. Mike Ruppert's article in From the Wilderness mentions numerous documents that he personally viewed but who knows who has those now or if they are publicly available.

The huge breadth of coverage of these sources is daunting. It will take a lot of work to nail them down and check the facts.

Start with these two:
https://www.amazon.com/Afghanistan-Graveyard-Empires-History-Borderland/dp/1605981893/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1496177236&sr=8-5
https://www.amazon.com/Forever-War-Dexter-Filkins/dp/0307279448/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1496177260&sr=8-3

Read this one to understand America's behavior: https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496177330&sr=8-1

Update with a simple read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2015%E2%80%93present)

End with this: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Latest-Longest-War-Afghanistan/dp/022626565X (on my kindle TBR list, but it's gotten good reviews from reputable publications, which is key when reading any sort of history, unless you're interested in becoming one of those looney right-wingers or bat-shit lefties).

Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard

There is no one person short of Henry Kissinger who has been more of a political insider through last 4 decades than Brzezinski. He was a key figure in supporting the Mujahideen and he almost single handedly created Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda means "the base", which referred to Brzezinski's database of useful Mujahideen fighters).

Brzezinski has advised on foreign policy from Carter to Obama and everyone in between. His book and his own words document the reasons for and the consequences of the US' role in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Any video claiming to give information on the beginnings of Al Qaeda/ISIS is horribly incomplete without THAT story....especially when the words come from the horse's mouth and the man is still alive today (his daughter is the co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC).

> I hope his interest doesn't end at sexual impropriety.

Well he has a new book coming out called "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"... so I would say his interests are broad.

We used International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity in the IR class I was assisting in and I thought it did a pretty good job of presenting the main theories. If for some reason you can read French, I would also recommend Théories des relations internationales by Dario Battistella.

This thread has confirmed that no one in this reddit has any idea what they are talking about.

For those interested, a good start is either: Clark, Golder, Golder or Frieden, Lake, Shultz.
They are a bit pricey, but you will not be upset, and more importantly have a solid beginning entry into understanding political activities.

This book pretty well satisfies me why we would want to take down Iran (again).
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320609129&sr=8-1

Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard is a great place to start.

The deal wasn't there to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons because any country can do that with enough enrichment process. What the deal was to delay Iran from creating a nuclear weapon for 10 years at MINIMUM with a massive possibility to that continuing towards the future. Iran doesn't want sanctions or a weak economy, they are willing to put away a nuclear weapon (if they wanted to make one) and improve their own country.

Research/upgrading facilities/development of ballistic missiles have nothing to do with a nuclear weapon. If you compare a nuclear weapon against a missile that can be shot down, I would say a nuclear weapon is better to avert. The US decided to put sanctions on their ballistic missiles program when EU decided not to with other countries deciding the same. The deal was a success and was one of the best foreign agreements in the century. You brought the EU/Russia/China/US to a fucking agreement that took YEARS in the making and we have orange head come and tear it apart. I honestly suggest everyone here to read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dealbreaker-Donald-Trump-Unmaking-Nuclear/dp/0999874756

It provides all the context to the deal, why it was signed and the process behind orange man removing it and the effects.

I recommend The American Age. It is basically a US history textbook (1750 to the present) but it focuses on U.S. foreign policy. It may not be great if you already know the particular episodes of imperial tomfoolery you're interested in, but it would give a good overview of the entire field.

Seconded on Elements of Style. Also, try reading authors who are known for straightforward and concise prose. It's only coming to mind because I was a political science major, but John Mearsheimer is great for this- his chapters precisely follow the "tell you what I'm going to say; say it; summarize what I just said" mantra.

> I'll concede the point that the US is very concerned by Chinas's rise but Russia's?

Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1992

"Russian threat" segment, unedited (ie "before being leaked") version:

> We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

This translates well in what is now happening in Ukraine. Here is was mister Brzezinski has to say about Ukraine in his book:
> Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasion chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the South.

Furthermore,

> Indeed, the Ukraine’s relationship to Europe could be the turning point for Russia itself. But that also means that the defining moment for Russia’s relationship to Europe is still some time off – ‘defining’ in the sense that Ukraine’s choice in favor of Europe will bring to a head Russia’s decision regarding the next phase of its history: either to be a part of Europe as well or to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its ‘near abroad’ conflicts.

I suggest you digging up the book. It contains quite a number of interesting thoughts regarding the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Unfortunately, I can't provide the most interesting of them right now.

Edit: fixed the link

Some from my shelf

Arsenals of Folly

The Cold War

On China

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

NATO's Return to Europe

On War

Bonus: The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198749953/?coliid=I1VZM8NH4D8427&colid=2ZKBN4RSJSYJV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it - Catherine Barnard - The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198789130/?coliid=I3FQZDCZWZQQW7&colid=2ZKBN4RSJSYJV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it - Catherine Barnard and Steve Peers (as mentioned above, he is really very good)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198708939/?coliid=I2G9WKHW05Z4U3&colid=2ZKBN4RSJSYJV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it - EU Politics.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Institutions-European-Union-New/dp/0198737416/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524610636&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=dermot+oleary+eu - Dermot Hodson, John Peterson 9eds) - Institutions of the EU.

A simple look on Amazon or Oxford University Press/Routledge etc will give you a great start for this type of text book and references will point you to further reading if you find yourself interested. The links I posted are most recent versions which I have read a bit but this type was my UG and PG essentially.

From the revisionist historiographical camp, the second volume of Walter LaFeber's "American Age" provides a good overview of American foreign policy from 1896 to the present. It's very readable, informative, and a great place to begin an investigation of 20th century foreign policy. Regardless of the book(s) you select, be sure to peruse the bibliographies for more materials as well.

Edit: I know you only asked for post-1945, but you can also purchase both volumes in one text here (1750 - present).

You should read The Grand Chessboard. You would enjoy it very much and then understand everything that is happening has been orchestrated for decades.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

This is but one of several attempts to soften public perception before a more aggressive stance take place. China plans 100 years ahead in many aspects, while our government rarely plans beyond an election cycle.

A good read for those interested in some of Chinas tactics.

https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1743794800/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_c_d8LlDbKVATNPD

> In terms of trade, China treats Australia far better than the US treats Canada.

Australia, however, is paying a price for that in other realms, especially political. I'd very much recommend reading https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

If you want to read an article about the book, NPR just recently covered Hamilton: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence

edit: if you don't have a counterargument, don't downvote me. That's cowardice and very un-/r/geopolitics of you.

A really good book to check out that helps explain some of why Saudi Arabia is acting so irrationally these days:

http://www.amazon.com/After-Sheikhs-Coming-Collapse-Monarchies/dp/0199330646

Yes it is. Read the Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404998957&sr=8-1&keywords=grand+chessboard

Respectfully, you are woefully oversimplifying Putin and his geopolitical game.

I recommend you check out Putin's Master Plan, which was written by a scholar on Russian affairs. This guy has been warning the world about Putin and his agenda since before it was fashionable to do so. Putin's agenda is far more complex, nefarious, and brilliant than you think.

That said, I do agree that he won't be successful and that ultimately, he'll fail... provided Western powers (especially NATO) stand up to him.

Andrew Heywood's "Politics" and "Ideologies" are great introductions.

https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524796577&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=the+silent+takeover+china

A great book just came out about it - The Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia

I strongly recommend this

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480093598&sr=1-1&keywords=the+grand+chessboard

if you want to dig deeper into what Russia has to deal with on a geopolitical level.

The Absent Superpower by Peter Zeihan would be a good start. He's also got a "sequel" coming out early next year called Disunited Nations which should go into even more detail. There are also plenty of recorded speaking events on youtube you can check out to get a general gist of his analysis. Here are the two most recent:

Keynote - Peter Zeihan 2019

The New World (Dis)Order - Peter Zeihan - 72nd CFA Institute Annual Conference

You also might be interested in some of these books as well.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-The-History-CIA/dp/0307389006

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

Learn more here: https://www.amazon.com/Absent-Superpower-Revolution-Without-America/dp/099850520X

That's exactly the plan. The US no longer has any incentive to play world police since shale is making it energy independent.

>>ROFL! So the Rangers and CIA assasins, the Special Forces and Marines have been converted from agents of oppression into million dollar per year farmers? Are you unable to see a propaganda stunt when you see it?

>They are also building schools, hospitals and infrastructure. You can choose to stay blind to this fact, but that does not mean they're not true. However, it would be preferable if you didn't discredit the work of our soldiers so much.

There you go again. Changing things and not answering a specific question. Purposely misleading. You said that soldiers are repairing agricultural land and I said that its a propaganda stunt, which it clearly is, and then you change to the American taxpayer building schools and hospitals. Its just propaganda. If we really wanted to help these people we wouldn't be killing them.

Why are we so intent on staying in Afghanistan? For humanitarian reasons? ROLF. Read "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives" by Zbigniew Brzezinski which lays out a foreign policy aimed at domination of Central Asia that has been a mainstay of US foreign policy for fifteen years. In another comment you said that Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are not important, which is as immoral a statement than I can imagine. Just as important as the profound motivations that moved Bush to invade Iraq are the reasons that the US means to remain in Afghanistan. And it isn't about building schools and hospitals.

If our real motivation were humanitarian it would be easy and cost less than 5% of what we are currently spending on killing people to make peace with the Taliban, help them divide Afghanistan into Pashtun and non-Pashtun autonomous districts, retire all US forces from Afghanistan and then hire Afgan, Iranian and Pakistani companies to build schools and hospitals.

But instead we are negotiating to keep military bases in Afghanistan until 2024. That will guarantee a permanent armed struggle, permanent killing in order for the Empire to have bases that can control pipelines and trade routes between Iran, the Stans, Pakistan and China. Its not about schools.

By the way, the people who live in Afghanistan are Afghans. Their currency is called the Afghani.

A highly relevant read:


>War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence, By Ronan Farrow





https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106

what would you like America to do?

​

This is like an incompetent heart surgeon "hey what do you want me to do" after they've botched the operation. Well with that attitude?

For a start, join the International Criminal Court and allow Cheney, Bush and co to stand trial for their warcrimes, including widespread use of torture and kidnapping EU citizens. That might make your actual allies take you more seriously, next time you see a wolf.

For another, end all financial and military support for Israel until such a time as they treat their captive Palestinian population like human beings and abide by International law and the Geneva conventions. That will get the moderate Arabs off your back, and who will in turn help tamp down the crazies.

Third, close a good few of the military bases around the world. It will net your taxpayers a lot of badly needed dollars and signal that America is not interested in being the world's dictator. That will get even more of the crazies off your back and force projection will hardly be affected, given the awesome current abilities of conventional forces.

Lastly, uh, The Taliban were not responsible for 911. You're confusing them with Al Qaeda. I put them in brackets, not because they were terrible for THE WORLD, but because they are awful to their own people, within Afghanistan... But it would have been a lot better for everyone involved to put diplomatic pressure on them via Pakistan and not bomb the bejesus out of wedding parties, school assemblies and untold numbers of other civilians creating more resistance than you stopped and looking worse than the Taliban in the process.

To sum up, basically stop siding with the wrong folks, and stop bombing people. Oh and beef up the diplomatic corps. It's been badly hollowed out. In fact just do that, and everything else will probably take care of itself.

Chiming in to mention The Grand Chessboard, who's author--Zbigniew Brzezinski--just passed away a few days ago.

It outlines America's grand strategy in the post ColdWar world, and is still relevant even in our post-2008 Recession world. A must read for IR.

Klassisches 2D Schach (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives):

https://www.amazon.de/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

Kurzer Abriss:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-eurasian-chessboard-brzezinski-mapped-out-the-battle-for-ukraine-in-1997/5373707

Also try - Grand Chessboard. He uses it as a textbook to his classes. I've seen it making rounds on p2p networks. Take the latest edition.

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

The Grand Chessboard. Written by: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The Grand Chessboard.

Non-fiction about Geopolitics and Geopolitical Strategy. Originally published in 1998, the book has proved to be quite prescient and insightful.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

Heres a good one

https://www.amazon.com/Absent-Superpower-Revolution-Without-America/dp/099850520X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526660084&sr=8-1&keywords=the+absent+super+power

IMHO the realist/Clausewitzian explanation is by far the most effective. The theory posits that all states are inherently confrontational, as all states seek to maximize their own security, and doing so necessarily compromises the security of other states. The situation is tragic, as elucidated by Mearsheimer.

How this is Clausewitzian is that he posited that any state in a position of strength would become aggressive, whereas any state that is weak would become passive and seek peace. China and Russia were both in positions of extreme weakness around 2000 economically, something that they both fixed during the GWB administration. Note China and Russia's economic ascendance during his terms. Both the Chinese and Russians have expressed the desire for peaceful relations with the US, neither of which receive much reciprocation, because the US doesn't have to, at least not yet.

So, bottom line, China and Russia have become aggressive because they can now actually challenge US aggression...and make no mistake the US has been ultra-aggressive since the end of WWII (chart #2 shows % of global military spending by US since 1988).

Especially when its laid out in a book by Jimmy Carters National Security Advisor

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

Well, you are not the ones decide to invade not invade. Here are some article that give hint of what's going on in the head of those who do. Brzezinski's book is especially interesting, as it was written in the 1990s. Many event since then, especially in the middle east and central asia, follows its advice. And the guy who wrote the come war with china is in the trump government as their china expert.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

https://www.amazon.com/Coming-China-Wars-Revised-Expanded/dp/0132359820

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/who-will-run-world

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-10-15/vanishing-nuclear-taboo

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option

and to put things in historical perspective read the following as well

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Asia-Effect-International-Politics/dp/0765805243

https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20131016_MackinderTheGeographicalJournal.pdf

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0393927091/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

It's in the third edition, but the $4 first edition is just fine.

One of the cycling official reasons, yes. For a less jingoistic understanding of US foreign policy, I might suggest The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski and Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman. In short, the US would never mobilize its considerable war power at such cost just out of pure, altruistic desire to topple a dictator. No doubt you're aware of the many dictators the US has installed and supported over the years.

I should have recommended The Absent Superpower
The Shale Revolution and a World Without America, which after 4 minutes of watching this is inline with the video.

OP isn’t writing the articles. The author of the article is also author of the book Putin’s Master Plan. So clearly he means Democrats should make bipartisan deals to stop Putin.

Invading Iraq, and doing an ostensibly bad job of it, were only one small part of the desired outcome of 9/11. Read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses. The Grand Chessboard by Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, is similarly illuminating and nausea-inducing.

>The U.S. decided to fight the Taliban because they, as an entity, supported Al Qaeda with money and equipment, and provided them safe havens to train in. Plus, as a bonus, they're huge pieces of shit who treat women like dirt and have turned child abuse into a national pastime.

You can level the same criticisms at Saudi Arabia, but we're best buds with them.

>Whatever pipeline might cross Afghanistan didn't remotely enter into it

If you seriously believe that geopolitical concerns related to projecting America's hegemony into resource rich regions of the world, and maintaining America's role as the only true world super-power, played no part in the Afghanistan war, then I suggest you read 'The Grand Chessboard' and learn about PNAC.


> if you believe otherwise, you're an idiot.

Ad hominem attacks on my mental faculties show that you don't believe that your arguments have sufficient merits on their own, and, so, you must resort to cheap insults without providing further content to the discussion.

<== has a BA in International Relations

If you really want to get into International Relations, the LKY School of Public Policy isn't very highly-regarded in the field. NTU's RSIS is far more respectable. Main reason is: Kishore Mahbubani of LKYSPP is a prolific huckster who spouts a lot of BS in order to drive sales of his own books.

And then there's the issue of your reason for wanting to pursue this Masters. You need to ask yourself on what you really want to get out of it, because admissions committees are going to pay a lot of attention to your reason for making them bother to read your application in the first place.

There's also the problem where you don't seem to know a lot about IR. If you don't, this beginner's guide is very effective at covering what undergrads usually go through in a semester-long Intro to IR course.

For more detailed reading, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics presents one of the dominant theories of International Relations and according to my very biased opinion, the one which represents what our global order moving towards in the next couple years.

Read those two at the very bare minimum, then you should have a fair idea if you're keen on this path. If reading those two makes you bored, then forget it, because you'll be reading a lot of this kind of material.

Do you want to know why we are in Afghanistan and are never planning on leaving? Here is the answer. Geopolitics.

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

Or, going more academic, somewhere in this book, Robert Jarvis said (paraphrasing here) that studies show that the lower cognitive ability a person has, the more complex they regard systems to be. Complexity is scary, better to just say there's evil people making things the way they are and go about your way. At least that way you're holding out hope that someone overthrows them and makes things nice.

https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

Thoughts Australians?

Kenneth Waltz writes a lot on international theory. He's a big name in IR scholastics.

Basically, there's realism, liberalism and constructivism... most of the additional theories are just updates or adjustments to those main theories. They all refer to how actors (states, individuals, groups) in the world interact.

https://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/1577666704/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1472840739&sr=8-3&keywords=International+Theory

那只是你在牆内不清楚而己。中國的長手伸入美國，歐洲的例子已報導很多了。 他們对西方世界的核心價值和生活方式巳形成侵蝕。以後再鍵接一些有関中國統戦部海外活動的報導。

舉個例子就好: 你知道為什麼澳洲今天這麽反華嗎？讀一讀這本2018的書就知道:

Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia
https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

Clive Hamilton
https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

Also the guy who wrote this this.

Not a single mention about any China questions...

Even after Ronan Farrow did thorough investigation

https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Andrew-Heywood/dp/0230363385

Need this testbank please

Silent Invasion is something I've been slowly making my way though. Old mate Huang is referenced in the index more times than Japan...Shall we send tissues along with our baby formula?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Policy maker extraordinaire.

His latest stance on Iran/Israel/Middle East/ ruffled a few feathers to say the least, http://www.haaretz.com/news/zbigniew-brzezinski-israel-s-push-for-iran-strike-may-hurt-u-s-ties-1.259081

His rather famous book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1334963523&sr=8-2

Her book: http://www.amazon.com/All-Things-Once-Mika-Brzezinski/dp/B0055X56M4/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334963560&sr=1-3

Then there is this book about Australia. Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by Mearsheimer.
https://www.amazon.ca/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics/dp/0393349276

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

In 1999? Where have I heard this before... oh, yeah! I think Brzezinski had something to say about that in 1997.

Here is a kicker. Putin is ex-KGB, everybody hide! Brzezinski is ex-NSA adviser to the president of the US. Pfft... don't worry, it's just a book. They would never pursue such policy, stop with your conspiracies Russia, gosh!

> is my breaking point.

Is it though? Would you actually get angry and stand up for yourself if someone came to try and disrupt the rally? Pro-HK rallies in Vancouver have been repeatedly disrupted by pro-China protesters. Demonstrators at SFU also had their wall taken down.

Organizing something like this on reddit is a likely way to have a "counter-protest" show up. The CCP actually exerts considerable influence among Chinese-Canadians and foreign exchange students (and it's not like Carleton has any lack of those). Canada's leading Chinese newspaper is indirectly controlled by the Beijing government. There's a pretty good book on the subject if you want to read more.

Point being, this sub regularly complains about issues like stress and mental health issues brought on by school, which would pale in comparison to the stress brought on by actual political activism. The HK issue is a political crisis and not really the place for slacktivism. Personally, I'd support a rally, but I'm also not the kind of person who clutches my keys between my fingers while walking to my car at night. Just some food for thought.

Yes, but your reasons are completely wrong.

Just read “The Absent Superpower” by Peter Zeihan. It gives a much more in depth response than any comment here, by someone who has worked with many government officials.

https://www.amazon.com/Absent-Superpower-Revolution-Without-America/dp/099850520X/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2/136-7994388-8928145?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=099850520X&pd_rd_r=37ef741a-37a2-11e9-a692-13b9b4e07a01&pd_rd_w=iYmPw&pd_rd_wg=ex0PX&pf_rd_p=b98fa1a4-6e6e-4981-835c-7fb29e0f4dd2&pf_rd_r=6X1PVFDBWDN35BCXAA20&psc=1&refRID=6X1PVFDBWDN35BCXAA20

There is the absent superpower, but I also recommend the one that came before it:

https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

Edit: No idea why the first one has such a longer link address

To understand the failure of the foreign policy of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy one should read

https://www.amazon.de/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

This entire conversation is basically a way of saying "how can we prove neorealism wrong?" Neorealism says that it is the nation state that's important, and liberal institutionalism says that it is institutions that are important (constructivism focuses on identity). The EU is a supranational institution, and with the problems caused by forces of nationalism during the 20th century in Europe and how they led to war, and because nobody wants war, some Europeans thought they could overcome the nation-state, and therefore overcome war.

And that's why its a 'tragedy' that neorealism is right. If you want to find out how the world really works, I can't suggest anyone better than John Mearsheimer (along with Stephen Walt). They're both neorealist theorists, Mearsheimer being an offensive neorealist, Walt a defensive neorealist; they agree on most points.

After years of studying this stuff, I couldn't find anyone apart from these two academics who explained international politics better. As an example, check out this book and all the controversy it created.

They are not popular in Europe, for reasons such as neorealism being pessimistic, nation state-centric, and concerned with questions such as survival, rather than the thriving of a society (they would say geopolitics trumps economics, or that you can't have economics without first taking the security and defense issues off the table as it were). They would say that it was not the EU which deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, but that it should have gone to NATO, as an example. They would likely say that the democratic peace thesis is wrong, because it is non-falsifiable; no democracy would call the country it is going to war with a proper democracy like it is.

There's more to say, but when I found out about these guys, it was like a bomb going off in my head. Finally, everything made sense, instead of things always being twisted around like a pretzel. In conclusion, they'd likely say the dream of a properly federalized Europe is a waste of time, and your time and personal political philosophy would best be spent elsewhere. Oh, one last thing - they're just as harsh on the US as they are on Europe!

i'm not blindly accepting it. you only believe that because you believe what america is doing is wrong. thats how self centered you are. because you believe anyone who supports the afghan/iraq war must be ignorant.

you want to know why we're truly in iraq and afghanistan then pick up a book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

then you can stop pretending like you're so high and mighty and the rest of us are ignorant. when in reality you're the fucking one that is ignorant.

edit**

please leave America

So everything, in your mind, ties back to oil? Not the hotbed of terrorism? You haven't mentioned precious metal mines in Afghanistan? The Chinese? The belt?

Have you ever read The Grand Chessboard? There's a section in it talking about the plan involving the ME and China.

I remember Bin Laden's piece.

You sound a little supportive of Jihadis. That's worrisome.

>They don't want territorial expansion

The fact that they steal so much and spy so much indicates that it's possible they haven't formally expanded due to a practical reason and not an ethical reason. Yet they're already heavily influencing Africa and, more frighteningly, Australia. The Chinese influence and population in Australia and New Zealand is rising so fast (already 5.6%) that military invasion would be a amateurish blunder; they're already getting what they want at a slow and steady pace.

Anti-Turkish sentiment was unleashed when Turkey began accession negotiations to join the EU. The more reforms Turkey passed, the more frantic many Europeans became, so they began accepting all anti-Turkish propaganda available on every Turkish issue.

Now the anger is about Turkey going with the alternative of a Middle East strategy. This wasn’t Erdoğan’s idea. Turkey becoming more Islamic and increasing its cooperation with Russia and the Arab world after being outcasted by the EU was a rational act predicted by political scientists before AKP ever came to power.

Most Westerners don’t have agendas related to Turkey and they're usually reasonable people, but there’s definitely a derangement people develop by reading Western news about Turkey. At this point, you’d have a more accurate understanding of the PKK, the 2016 failed coup and its aftermath, Erdoğan, etc. from reading Daily Sabah than you would from much of the Western press. That’s sad.

Not at all. Haven't you guys seen how much Trump celebrates his endorsements from football's coaches and players? The fact is that football, NFL and college, plays a significant role in the lives of the people Trump is courting. Scheduling a debate around the time of a major NFL game which can lure away some of his audience could actually be a real disadvantage. It does make sense to complain about this. It also raises awareness of the debates for his Twitter followers. Given the state of things, they'll probably skip the debate whoops I meant the game.

At some point, there will be an autopsy done, not just by Democrats and Republicans, but by something like the Trilateral Commission, about the erosion of trust in the government's authority. Lots of pretty words, plenty of serious analysis. Once upon a time, major newspapers and the nightly news were accused of not having enough allegiance to the federal government and spreading cynicism. And now, social media's supposed "Choose your own adventure" style of journalism will likely be accused of creating a brand new challenge for the federal government. The filter bubble, the 'post-fact' era, etc, these ideas have been picked up and spread around by the major papers since about November already.

Nothing will be said about the government's abandonment of the people for the interests of the rich. Nothing about lost jobs, prisons, constant war. Nothing about the entire world tired of being told to wait. And nothing about a public tired of the human sacrifices in Orlando, San Bernadino, Paris, Baghdad, Istanbul the global elites offered up to the heavens so that they could maintain their dirty profits and hegemony. Dead innocents were weighed against the plan to circle the underbelly of Eurasia so that we could make the fat cats and their leeches fatter. And the dead, no matter their citizenship, were found wanting.

If there is any mention of it, it'll just be called a perception, a feeling deep down in the lizard brain. The only thing they'll end up recommending to battle that sort of thing will be lies, slogans, rhetoric. Maybe a new Ministry of Information. Some way to turn the protesting public back towards apathy. "Effective democratic political systems requires some measure of apathy and non involvement on the part of some individuals and groups" (p. 124), they'll say. But it'll never be policy.

Weitere Erklärungen wurden nachgereicht!

>
Ich habe 8 Jahre für die Bundeswehr / NATO gearbeitet. Da bin ich oft in die USA, dort wurde mir das 2003/4 schon gesagt. Ebenso die Entwicklung in Syrien.
>
Eine Revolution oder ein Krieg ist immer lange geplant. Das passiert alles nicht zufällig und einfach so. Es wird die politische Lage beobachtet und dann entweder gegengesteuert, wenn man eine Entwicklung nicht haben will oder befeuert wenn die Entwicklung im nationalen Interesse ist. Dann wird eine Werbekampagne gefahren (Brunnen bauen in Afghanistan, böser Russe muss zurückgedrängt werden, im Irak gibt es Massenvernichtungswaffen, Erdogan böse, deswegen sind wir jetzt in Jordanien). Eigentlich spielen alle das gleiche Spiel und alle miteinander. Ebenso ist die Krim-Übername der Russen von allen mehr oder weniger abgesegnet. Dafür kann der Rest zur EU, mit Krim und Schwarzmeerflotte wäre das nicht möglich gewesen.
>
In Jordanien sind wir aber nicht wegen Erdogan, sondern wegen den Palästinänsern, und ihrem neuen Staat den es bald geben wird und Jordanien dabei eine wichtige Rolle spielen wird.
>
Mehr gibts eigentlich nicht zu erklären. DIe Nachrichtendienste sind dabei die, welche die Informationen sammeln, und Nachrichten für die Öffentlichkeit aufbereiten. Nicht in Deutschland, aber die deutschen Medien sprechen auch alles nach, was von Übersee kommt.
>
Das ganze funktioniert sogut, weil die allermeisten bei den Themen gleich austeigen und es nicht glauben wollen. Andere beschuldigen dann sie seien Verschwörungstheoretiker und so geht das Spielt halt weiter.
>
Wenn Du Dir das Buch "The Great Chessboard" durchliest, dann wurde da schon ziemlich genau die Zukunft 15 Jahre vorausgessagt. Das ist durchaus möglich. Wenn die Vorhersage also im nationalen Interesse ist, wird versucht, das geschehen zu lassen.
>
Und die AfD war eben, dann guter Aufklärung schon 2003 bekannt, ebenso wie 1998 die Entwicklung in der Ukraine oder im Nahen Osten bekannt war (Buch dient als Beweis)

Falls jemand sich das Buch kaufen will https://www.amazon.de/_/dp/0465027261