I don’t get it. Mearsheimer says that all countries want to be hegemons because it’s their best bet for survival. But hegemons always have to deal with rising power and their own waning power. Isn’t the best bet for a country to be neutral and isolationist (e.g., switzerland or lichenstein) or an irrelevant backwater that no one cares about?
Look at what happened to Japan for being isolationist.
If the USA becomes totally isolanistnist then the other superpowers will get control of the other countries and the key resources. Eventually that will make you weaker and you lose.
Japan was poor and cut off all trade. When I say isolationist, I don’t mean autarky. You should prioritize economic development and keep up with arms races. I mean not meddling in conflicts 5000 miles away from the homeland and trying to create regional and world orders that benefit the homeland marginally.
If the USA is not controlling a country the other superpowers will and little by little they will control all the resources. And you will be weaker.
The US gained its industrial might not by spending trillions on developing regional/world orders but by focusing inward and developing industrial might and wealth that not even Britain could rival. Sure it had its sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, but any foreign power that tried to frick with it was doomed even when it wasn’t a world hegemon. See Japan and Spain. I guess what I’m trying to say is that sometimes the resources of maintaining hegemony are too much of a drain on the nation for it to keep it up.
>If the USA wouldn't have defended South Korea right now only the communist Korea would exist, under the influence of China.
>If the USA wouldn't have defended Taiwan it would be right now part of China.
>If the USA wouldn't have supported Japan either Russia or China would have control it.
>If the USA stops supporting Ukraine it would be controlled by Russia.
And I can continue forever but I think that you get the idea. Yeah you shouldn't waste money in stupid wars all the time but if you don't control a country either by economic influence or military power the other superpowers will take your place.
All those countries you listed are only important because they are used to contain China or Russia. Maybe you can argue that you wouldn’t see the same economic development in Korea and Japan if they were communist but they would liberalize over time like China
But would be under China's influence, not USA. That's the point.
Take any country in the world and you will realize they are under the influence of the USA, China or Russia.
And how does that threaten the US mainland. After the US was a fledgling nation and before the end of WW2 when it became the world hegemon, did any country have a chance to threaten the US mainland? Britain invaded in 1812 but it was arguably a fledgling nation then. Once it became an industrial powerhouse no one dared to threaten it
You don't need to invade a country to make it weaker. Nobody will ever invade the USA, you weaken it by other means. You make it destroy itself from within.
Pay attention during his lectures, he literally says that the Liberal strategy of establishing hegemony is doomed to failure.
He's a big proponent of le balance of power.
No no bro you don't understand, what you must strive for is BALANCE OF POWER where you keep the world in a stagnant order where you and a couple of other nations are in deadlock and you inevitably start a world war leaving millions dead after one of you attempts a land grab.
Yeah, that's how you do international relations bro.
mearshit is an absolute brainlet and I can't believe people take him seriously
he's just asshurt the ukraine war exposed his nonsense
>I don’t get it. Mearsheimer says that all countries want to be hegemons because it’s their best bet for survival. But hegemons always have to deal with rising power and their own waning power. Isn’t the best bet for a country to be neutral and isolationist (e.g., switzerland or lichenstein) or an irrelevant backwater that no one cares about?
Not really. It's never good to be at the feet of hegemons - and even if the roster of powerful nations shifts with the generations, there's always going to be a few able and willing to go out into the world and frick with you for whatever reason they can dream up.
New powers rise even if you're not around to car. You can't escape from a shifting world by closing your eyes, covering your ears, and pretending it doesn't exist. At least a faltering hegemon can exert some degree of control over their fate.
Just because certain nations wish to remain neutral because it's in their best interests doesn't mitigate the fact that other nations will wish to maintain and expand their sphere's on influence
No. Isolationist countries are dependent on the mercy of their neighbors for survival. What did neutrality and isolationism afford Denmark, Norway, or the Netherlands in WW2? What did it afford Belgium in WW1?
Well their infrastructure wasn’t destroyed for one and their population wasn’t killed—at least compared to countries that resisted
You forgot about Spain which was chilling throughout both wars
Serbs will still be there in 10 thousand years and America will not