Register to Comment
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112
Like Tree74Likes
  1. #11
    Dadaist Dadaist is offline
    Dadaist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    13,395

    Is Dennis O'Brien mentioned in this thread?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12
    Justinian Justinian is offline
    Justinian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,186

    Quote Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
    The overall theory has been invalidated by the jet propulsion engine.

    Zbigniew Brzezynski believes in it though. The theory is useful for his paranoid mind.
    It's also invalidated by the fact that its central idea - a single power is capable of being the world hegemon - is patently false. The best a power can hope for is regional hegemony. Well, that's actually not true. There's one possible exception, but that's to do with technology, not geography.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #13
    Daniel M Daniel M is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    432

    Mackinder was right that land empires and sea empires are inherently in a struggle with each others, the mentality of a sea empire and land empire is naturally always vastly different. There is a very real reason why the British empire never managed to get along with the Russian empire or why the Soviet Union and the US never managed to get along with each others, they are inherently in conflict with each other.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #14
    Daniel M Daniel M is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    432

    Quote Originally Posted by Justinian View Post
    It's also invalidated by the fact that its central idea - a single power is capable of being the world hegemon - is patently false. The best a power can hope for is regional hegemony. Well, that's actually not true. There's one possible exception, but that's to do with technology, not geography.
    That's not true, the US has managed to be a world hegemon and still is, this is mostly done by the US having a vast alliance system that acts as containment of regional powers such as Russia and China. Thus Japan and other US Asian allies constrain China while Poland and other US allies in Europe constrain Russia.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #15
    Justinian Justinian is offline
    Justinian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,186

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel M View Post
    That's not true, the US has managed to be a world hegemon and still is, this is mostly done by the US having a vast alliance system that acts as containment of regional powers such as Russia and China. Thus Japan and other US Asian allies constrain China while Poland and other US allies in Europe constrain Russia.
    Mearsheimer would not agree with you. The United States has dominance in the Western Hemisphere. That is where it is the regional hegemon. It does not occupy a similar position in any other area of the world. It cannot dictate alone the limits of acceptable behavior for the entire world, it can only do so in the Western Hemisphere.*

    You mention the various allies that the United States has in other regions. Have you paused to consider that these allies of the United States are balancing against a threat from within their own region and that the United States serves to provide extra weight on the scales of this balancing coalition? These states are not the United States, and their power is not that of the United States, their power is their own.

    The goal of the United States is not to dominate these other regions. It doesn't need to and doesn't have the capability of doing so. What it needs to do, and what it has done, is ensure that no other state dominates a region. That is to say: That there emerges no other regional hegemon.

    And when the states themselves can't effectively balance against a potential hegemon? Well, then the distant hegemon extends a hand.

    *Compare and contrast the invasion of Grenada with Desert Storm.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #16
    Daniel M Daniel M is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    432

    Quote Originally Posted by Justinian View Post
    Mearsheimer would not agree with you. The United States has dominance in the Western Hemisphere. That is where it is the regional hegemon. It does not occupy a similar position in any other area of the world. It cannot dictate alone the limits of acceptable behavior for the entire world, it can only do so in the Western Hemisphere.*

    You mention the various allies that the United States has in other regions. Have you paused to consider that these allies of the United States are balancing against a threat from within their own region and that the United States serves to provide extra weight on the scales of this balancing coalition? These states are not the United States, and their power is not that of the United States, their power is their own.

    The goal of the United States is not to dominate these other regions. It doesn't need to and doesn't have the capability of doing so. What it needs to do, and what it has done, is ensure that no other state dominates a region. That is to say: That there emerges no other regional hegemon.

    And when the states themselves can't effectively balance against a potential hegemon? Well, then the distant hegemon extends a hand.

    *Compare and contrast the invasion of Grenada with Desert Storm.
    It's true that US has not totally domination of every regional area but their influence has increased enormously in the last 25 years to the point that the US will now build missile defense systems aimed against Russia very close to the Russian border. That is enormous influence if you can hurt a major country like Russia that easily with minimal problems. A similar system is being designed against China in Asia. If successful the US will be able to clip the wings of every major power it sees as an enemy the coming decade or so.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #17
    lostexpectation lostexpectation is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    20,638

    Quote Originally Posted by parentheses View Post
    A fascinating article I came across, written by a German academic. It discusses the classic theories of geopolitics and how they now impact on the war in Syria.

    It was Sir Halford Mackinder who developed the "Heartland Theory". This theory argued that whoever controlled Eastern Europe could control the "Heartland" of Eurasia. The Heartland is a vast area from the Volga to the Yangtze river in China and from Tibet to the Arctic. And controlling this area could lead to world domination.

    Mackinder's student, the American Nicholas Spykman, later modified Mackinder's theory to argue that it was the "Rimland" of Eurasia, not the Heartland, that was the most decisive zone. The Rimland runs from Scandinavia through the centre of Eastern Europe down into the Middle East and then along the shores of the Indian Ocean and on to Indo-China and the coast of China. Spykman argued that Maritime powers such as America could dominate this "Rimland" area. It is this "Rimland" area that has seen many American interventions since the beginning of the Cold War.

    Now Russia and its allies have directly challenged America in the Rimland.

    An actual victory by Russia and its allies in Syria could have the severest consequences for America's prestige and freedom of action in the "Rimland". It looks like the Syrian war may continue and is already becoming a proxxy war between Russia and America.


    Whoever Controls Eurasia Controls the World
    erm Iraq?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #18
    Truth.ie Truth.ie is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    30,813

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel M View Post
    It's true that US has not totally domination of every regional area but their influence has increased enormously in the last 25 years to the point that the US will now build missile defense systems aimed against Russia very close to the Russian border. That is enormous influence if you can hurt a major country like Russia that easily with minimal problems. A similar system is being designed against China in Asia. If successful the US will be able to clip the wings of every major power it sees as an enemy the coming decade or so.
    Missiles defence systems does not bring automatic regional power.
    Russia by using statesmanship, diplomacy and military action against extremists is winning over the Middle East from the Caspian to the Mediterranean.
    America can have all the shiny missiles in the World, but it means little on the ground as the conflict is so fractured and localised.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #19
    parentheses parentheses is offline
    parentheses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    12,164

    .


    the Russian military operation in Syria has clearly transformed the conflict into a geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the United States. At this stage, we can only hope that leaders of those two countries will not allow the confrontation to escalate into open armed conflict between them

    A three-sided disaster: The American, Russian, and Iranian strategic triangle in Syria | Brookings Institution
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #20
    Ren84 Ren84 is offline
    Ren84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    51,486

    Quote Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
    The overall theory has been invalidated by the jet propulsion engine.

    Zbigniew Brzezynski believes in it though. The theory is useful for his paranoid mind.
    What is your obsession with Brzezynski? When was the last time he held any position in the US Govt?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment