John J. Mearsheimer: Can China Rise Peacefully? 

The right question should be "Can USA decline peacefully?" Compared to USA, China has been boringly peaceful for decades . 😊

"Can China Rise Peacefully?" That is the wrong question. The correct question is, "Can the US decline peacefully?"

China had risen peacefully already.

The question should be "Can the U.S. allow China to rise peacefully?"

10 years past from this lecture and China still not in any war.

The U.S. needs to accept that a non-Anglo European country can be a world power.

The main issue with John is that, he views China through his US lense. His main theory is based on if US did X, Y and Z, China will do X, Y and Z whilst not appreciating the difference in culture of these 2 countries undermines his key points completely. Some said John is an anti-war, that is so untrue. He is against what NATO does in Ukraine but thinks US should put the whole world at risk of being wiped out by provoking China and Taiwan as well as going to war if required.

There are two weaknesses in John's assumption - The lack of understanding on cultural difference and historical development of the Chinese. There is this missional topic about Cross-Cultural study in order for one to be effective in missional outreach into a different culture. The same is needed to understand India etc. Territorial disputes in Asia are legacy imposed and caused by the West during the colonial period of the past. We in Asia believe that multilateralism in a multi-polar world will works better for world peace.

The question is not whether China can rise peacefully or not. The question is: Can the USA ( Empire) take it peacefully? If all the anti-China policies, sanctions and disinformation are factored in together with war-mongering industries and Washington's self-interests, the Empire will likely go rage, rage and rage into the good night.

Americans get nightmares about what they have done all over the world.🙏

The question should really be: will America allow China to rise or rise peacefully

John is obviously not familiar with Chinese history and political traditions. China is a face-loving celestial country. In ancient times, as long as neighboring countries such as Japan, North Korea, and Vietnam paid tribute, China would not dictate their internal affairs. Just like Columbus sailed for plunder, Zheng He of China's Ming Dynasty sailed to the West to showcase China and give gifts.

You cannot explain the rise and future of China following Western guide lines... especially not the United States behavior which has always been violent, capitalist and expansionist... it just doesn't make sense. China is not an expansionist, aggressive empire like the US and the EU these days that cannot endure equal competition.

China is a blessing and benefactor to the world 👍♥️🇨🇳

This guy doesn't understand China ang China history, that was why he said he didn't know what Chinese is going to do after 30 years later.

35:34 "the Chinese have precipitated remarkably few crises" and yes do have "a vested interest in rising peacefully" while "the United States is a ruthless great power" that just ignored Nixons advice to assist Russia.

Mearsheimer is an honest imperialist, that's what I appreciate about him. Most are not. Not the best covering China but relatively great in the West.

The title should be "How did China rise so peacefully and quietly?"

The USA should see itself as one among many, and not the one above many.

Mearsheimer isn't an expert on China like Kishore Mahbubani. So whatever he opines about China is limited.

In core, professor Mearishimar is a dangerous extremist, rather than a realist. In reality, there always co-exists might vs anti-might, force vs anti-force, or action vs reaction force. But he single-mindedly preachs his type of alternative reality, “might makes rule". That's, brutal violence sets world order. The consequence is the U.S. is quickly depleting its diplomatic strength and financial resources, and declining quickly too.

So this video originally recorded in 2014. So why upload now? Or this is just a reupload?

He is an American and no matter what he still prefer America to be the hegemon. Its very difficult for westerners to accept to be outdone by Asians after many centuries of world dominance and I can understand this . But the fact Asia rises and the west decline is becoming a reality and nothing can stop it.

Wars fit for Mearsheimear’s theory, while coups for Fukuyama’s. But both obey the Law of Instrument: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The neo-realism is too Hobbesian. Don’t make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Use the brain to think of a better theory with a better human nature.

I can’t understand why the rise of China is bad for Taiwan. This is only in the thoughts of outsiders and especially the one from US perspective. What is so difficult to have a prosperous Taiwan within a powerful motherland and especially when they are treated with very special priority and able to functions as they used to be in politics and governance. So, why sow negativity just to ensure that Taiwan will remain status quo for the US outpost. For goodness sake, they are both Chinese and for those small numbers whose intention of independence and the uninformed gullible, selfish public to allow the Taiwan people’s interests to be ruined? Like, which state wants to be themselves when they are living in the shell of the USA, the most powerful country.

When was the talk given?

Meanwhile the rest of the world asks: Can United States fall peacefully?

Judging by the 180+ US military bases and 40+ biolabs surrounding it, I’d take a jab here and say “No?”

Read "Towers of Ivory and Steel" and ask yourself why Reed still partners with universities that violate human rights and John gave a great talk so on that note keep it up

Mearsheimer's theory assume rational state behaviour. The problem for the western world is that they confuse Chinese rationalism to be the same as western rationalism. It is not. China pursues greatness not through war but commerce.

Hehe, Mr. John J. Mearsheimer? He thinks that the Chinese think in the same way that he thinks, with limited vision. Does a power always seek hegemony? In your Westerner's mentality, absolutely yes. But in the oriental wisdom, no, at least not necessarily. Chinese research tanks nowadays know way more about the US than the reverse. John might have been to China for times but still hasn't got a clue about the oriental wisdom. After thousands of years of precipitation, we have found that "if disagreed, be a better yourself to invite agreement"! But the American theory is "if disagreed, I will kill you"!

Somehow Mearsheimer never apply his theory to Israel, which he always derides

Very good. From 10 years on, we can see that Israel/Palestine falls into the 25%+ he gets wrong, but he admits that his theory doesn't deal with nonstate actors or actors who have been made desperate enough to risk the "irrational"

This lecture is from 2014, 10 years ago. Why was this interesting yet very obsolete uploaded 3 weeks ago? So much has changed.

There are almost 200 military bases of USA and UK surrounding China from Japan to Malaca strait... why ??? Why all those troops, war planes, strategic bombers, submarines, strategic misils, etc, etc.

The only part that aged well was the part about Russia/Ukriane, thats the part he actually had extensive knowledge on, the rest are just his dogmatic personal beliefs and projections, based mostly on an Americentric view (most scholars tend to at least try to steer away from their own culture bias and be at least somewhat objective). Since this lecture America has been involved in wars in Libya Yemen Syria Palestine Ukraine etc. while China participated exactly 0 war in the same time period, expect the same trend for the next 3 or 4 decades, Americans and their proxies love bombing other countries while demonizing the Chinese.

Banger I love this guy and he has good things to say on Israel Gaza

John J. Mearsheimer is not an expert. He assumes and makes his conclusion based on his US lens of geopolitics theories that is linear of competition of great powers.

What I find striking in your plausible approach is how incredibly pointless and dangerous all this competitive activity has become. The development of competitive states may describe the death of civilization. Humans are limited by environmental conditions. This reality is ignored in your approach.

Thanks for the upload

It's always a pleasure listening to John Mearsheimer I'm currently doing my undergrad in Pol sci and today he really got into the basics of IR and clarified so many concepts.

中美两国像在同班念书的学生； 中国来自乡下，有点木讷，老实，只知道勤奋读书，入校成绩很差，被人瞧不起，但是好在慢慢追赶。 美国是那个班里最闪亮的公子哥，家境优渥，聪明好动，学习能力很强，人见人爱，入校时也是第一名。 慢慢的美国骄傲了，不爱努力学习了，开始搞派对，玩乐队，飞大麻叶子，拉帮结派欺负别的同学了。 中国还是持续努力。 眼瞧着到了期末考试了，美国也有点着急了，但积重难返，一个学期欠下来的功课怎可能1周赶上？ 中国说你别急，你那么聪明，慢慢来肯定能考好。 美国说，我他妈信你个鬼！到时候老子急了把你们卷子都撕了，大家都是零分！ 我考不好，谁他妈也别想考好！ 😂

Does question "Can China Rise Peacefully?" have to do anything with USA preventing the rise of China? Wouldn't the answer to this question also depend on actions taken by USA? or is USA considered force of nature?

I personally love the United States, but we are tired of its isolation in the world and its foreign policy, and I think that many agree with me, but at the same time the rise of China is very scary and I do not wish for a war to occur between China and America. I hope that American politicians will listen to people like Professor John so that we can avoid war as much as possible. Thanks for the rich lecture❤

Why is Reed posting this video today

As far I know the nukes technically were in Ukraine, but the actual control over them belonged to Russia anyway.

He knows absolute ZERO about Taiwan. I am Taiwanese, and every single point he mentions about Taiwan is entirely wrong. We aren't "scared" of China. We are 99% ethnic Chinese; literally almost everyone has family or does business in China. Our government claims to be the government of all of China after fighting a civil war against (and losing to) the Communists; we lost because we sided with the imperialist Americans, who never actually wanted us to win but always wanted us to stay in a suspended state of war against China so they could profit. In the modern world, even we understand that our grandfathers' claim that Taiwan rules all of China is ridiculous and that we need to come to consensus how to resolve our civil war. It's our business and not the US or anyone else's.

It seems JM's biggest influences are his mother and the bully in the (us) classroom Mother "God will help them who help themselves" : China is actually adhering to that in a peaceful way "Always be aware of the bully in the classroom": China is conducting itself in the appropriate diplomatic manner

Its always amazing that why we common people are not taught these international political concepts in schools. RU-vid has made it possible for common people like us to even hear such things but this is how the world works. Interesting

I thought this was a new lecture but it’s a 2014 lecture uploaded in 2024, 10 years after almost to the day. Why? Better late than never? Or especially relevant right now somehow?

Mozambique salutes the lecture

JM is outing himself as a white supremacist!

intelligent conversation.

He contradicts himself while taking about Russia and China, lacking facts and being subjective on the latter, same as most westerns.

There is so much in this lecture that a whole class could and should be given on its interpretation.

Unfortunately it is not how things work

The Chinese through sheer hard work have brought 800 million of its population from abject poverty to near middle class within the last 3 to 4 decades is unprecedented in the world. Look at every major Economic parameters from Health span,mortality rate, home ownership,car ownership,internet penetration,education levels..etc etc it is the fastest progress the world has ever seen. This was archieved without a war..a invasion..a regime change ..a colonization spree..or plundering of other natives resources etc..How on Earth can this not be classified as the most Peacefull rise of a Nation ever.. Look at " Great: Britain how many colonies did it Ravished..France..Spain and even US on the number of Fertile Territories from Texas to Carlifornia it took from Mexico ..etc ( The Mexicans are returning the favour by coming back to resettle it😢) Of Course the Speaker here is not into the morality question but just Real politics ..US just wants to be the no 1 Dorminant Power of the world ..and will do its utmost to supress any upcoming power .. US and the West fears that the next non West Dorminant Power will BEHAVE just like them.. But don t worry the Chinese DNA through their 4 000 years history has shown that they are non Evangelistic and For "God King and Country " Colonizing methodology but a more The Prosperity Gospel stream..😊.. Ie Prosper thy neighbour so that in turn thy neigbour will buy more stuff from China and prosper China even further...😂

I mean to this question I would ask another... How long did last the last historical empire ? Not less than 20, 50, 100 years. It's a new paradigm that is here for the rest of our life at least. We should adapt instead of staying into denial.

Haha. I didn’t realize that that talk was from 2014 until about half way through…

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation ****00:00** - **02:19** 🇨🇳 Can China Rise Peacefully?** * Discusses two central questions surrounding China's rise: its future trajectory and the possibility of a peaceful ascent. * Highlights the speaker's agnostic view on whether China's rise will persist due to differing opinions from experts. * Emphasizes the importance of the second question - can China rise peacefully - as it holds significant implications for the US, China's neighbors, and China itself. * Stresses the need for a theoretical framework to analyze China's rise, as predicting the future relies on understanding the past and present. * Dismisses anecdotal evidence from meetings, as those individuals may not be relevant in the future. * Argues that a robust theory of great power politics, capable of explaining historical and current events, is essential for predicting China's future trajectory. ****02:19** - **05:07** 📚 Predicting the Future with Theory** * Outlines five assumptions about the international system that form the basis of his theory. * States are the primary actors in an anarchic system. * All states possess some degree of offensive military capability. * States are rational actors who prioritize their own survival and security. * The international system is characterized by a lack of trust and a constant fear of other states' actions. * States are constantly seeking to maximize their power and influence in order to ensure their survival. ****05:07** - **07:09** 🌎 Five Assumptions of Great Power Politics** * Emphasizes the difficulty in discerning the true intentions of states due to their intangible nature. * Compares it to the challenge of predicting behavior in a marriage, drawing a parallel to divorce rates. * Concludes that while current intentions might be somewhat decipherable, future intentions remain uncertain, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of states' actions. ****07:09** - **10:39** 🤔 The Intricacies of Intentions** * Details the three primary behaviors of states stemming from the five assumptions. * States inherently fear each other because of potential threats posed by offensive capabilities and uncertain intentions. * They prioritize self-help and self-preservation due to the lack of a higher authority in the anarchic international system. * States strive to become the most powerful in their region - a regional hegemon - to ensure survival by deterring aggression. * Cites the United States as a prime example, highlighting its dominance in the Western Hemisphere. * Introduces the concept of "freedom to roam" where a regional hegemon, free from significant threats in its own region, can intervene globally. ****10:39** - **17:32** 🐺 Survival, Self-Help, and the Quest for Power** * Examines American foreign policy from 1783 to the present, arguing that it aligns with the theory of great power politics. * Describes the US's expansion across North America through Manifest Destiny and the removal of European powers from the Western Hemisphere via the Monroe Doctrine. * Cites the US's role in defeating potential peer competitors like Germany and Japan in the 20th century as evidence of its hegemonic ambitions. * Applies the theory to China, suggesting its likely pursuit of regional hegemony in Asia as it grows in power. * Draws parallels to China's "century of national humiliation" and the desire to never be weak again. * Predicts China's ambition to push the US out of East Asia, similar to the US's enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. ****17:32** - **22:37** 🦅 American Foreign Policy: A History of Hegemony** * Explores the conflicting interests of a peacefully rising China seeking regional hegemony and a threatened United States determined to contain it. * Argues China benefits from a slow, peaceful rise, as time favors its growing power, while the US, perceiving a future threat, is incentivized to act sooner. * Highlights the emerging balancing coalition of countries like Japan, India, and Vietnam, driven by concerns over China's growing power. * Introduces the security dilemma, where actions perceived as defensive by one nation are seen as offensive by another, using the US "pivot to Asia" as an example. * Explains how China's defensive military buildup in response to regional anxieties is interpreted by the US as further evidence of aggressive intentions. * Warns that this cycle fuels an arms race and increases the risk of conflict, comparing it to the dangers of the Cold War. ****22:37** - **29:01** 🌏 China's Rise: Mirroring the Hegemon?** * Acknowledges the inherent limitations of social science theories and the possibility of his own theory being wrong in 25% of cases. * Expresses hope that the rise of China falls within that 25%, leading to a peaceful outcome despite the bleak predictions. * Acknowledges the counterargument that economic interdependence between the US and China makes war unlikely, but argues that politics often outweighs economics in crises. * Provides further examples, such as Taiwan, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute, and the Ukraine crisis, to illustrate how political considerations can override economic interests. * Uses China's stance on Taiwan's independence to emphasize that political imperatives, even if economically damaging, can drive actions. * Cites the potential for nationalism to ignite conflict over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, demonstrating that political calculations often supersede economic logic. ****29:01** - **32:13** 🚧 China's Peaceful Rise vs. US Containment** * Addresses questions about the role of terrorist organizations and states acting irrationally within his theory. * Acknowledges that his state-centric theory doesn't directly address non-state actors like terrorist groups, viewing them as less significant threats. * Concedes that the assumption of states as rational actors is not always accurate, which explains why his theory has limitations. * Expresses uncertainty about the future trajectory of China's economic growth, citing differing opinions among experts. * Highlights the inherent danger for Taiwan if China's economy continues to grow, as it increases the likelihood of China asserting control over the island. * Reiterates that even with economic interdependence, the uncertainty about China's future intentions makes its growing power a concern. ****32:13** - **41:28** ⚔ The Security Dilemma in US-China Relations** * Acknowledges the counterargument that many powerful nations throughout history overextended themselves and ultimately collapsed. * Admits the US is the only country to successfully maintain hegemonic status for an extended period and enjoyed unique geographical advantages. * Prepares to further discuss the specific historical context of the US and how it managed to avoid the pitfalls of overreach. * Explores counterarguments to his theory, acknowledging that many historical great powers ultimately overreached and collapsed. * Highlights the uniqueness of the US in achieving sustained hegemony due to its geographical isolation and late emergence as a great power. * Concedes that rational states, aware of these historical patterns, might choose a more cautious approach to expansion. ****41:28** - **44:15** 🔬 The Limits of Theory and the Hope for Peace** * Expresses hope that China will recognize the limits of its power and not risk war with the US and its allies, but acknowledges the potential for miscalculations. * Predicts that China will constantly probe for opportunities to expand its influence, which creates inherent risks of conflict. * Raises concerns about the lack of a clear "central front" in Asia, making limited wars more likely than during the Cold War in Europe. * Addresses a question about whether economic expansion, rather than territorial conquest, could trigger conflict with China. * Points out that China, unlike the early US, already possesses vast territory and has fewer incentives for large-scale territorial expansion. * Acknowledges China's existing territorial disputes but suggests it might prefer to resolve them through economic and military strength rather than war. Made with HARPA AI

This lecture is from 2014. Someone should show this video to Mearsheimer and ask him if his opinion changed on anything he said here... Especially when he said Russia and Ukraine confrontation is not much of a hot spot likely to cause WW3.

It would be foolish for Taiwan to trust the US.

The question not whether China can rise peacefully as they proved since WW2 they have rather whether the US can recede peacefully as they have proved they cannot

Confused about US being the only regional hegemony. Before World War I, wouldn't the British Empire be considered a regional hegemony? Didn't they have a huge presence all around the world? They had a literal hegemony in the Australian continent/ Didn't the British control the Indian subcontinent until after World War 2?

Why should the US be free to roam, but not other regional hegemons? Very one-sided

Brilliant! Performance? Yes! But unquestionably brilliant.

What does support the thesis that the countries are rational actors? Are never-ending wars rational? China and Russia might act rationally for the moment... And what "rationally" even mean? Do India and China 🇨🇳 have a rational relationship? How's India's relationship with Pakistan? ISRAEL?! If only the collective west would behave rationally!

There are copies of this video with more than twice the views

Regarding China as a global military hegemon, (including audience questions), where is the means for them to do so? China has a primarily littoral defensive focus and totally lack the the internationals bases of the USA or even France of Italy. Ignoring the fact China does not have a history of far-flung colonialism (father only neighboring vassal states), even if China suddenly reversed its historical trajectory of mercantilism not militarism, it simply does not have the focus or bases to mount the "world domination" some people imagine. Please, someone, explain how that would work.

John has very little knowledge on China, so his opinion on China is meaningless, don’t waste of your time here.

Dr. Mearshimer is really great 😃👍👍

this lecture is from 2014? and yet it still sounds quite relevant

That was exactly what the us did to Japan, to keep their economy flat😅

Talk should have been delivered on " will US gracefully accept the new super power of international order as Britshers did after WW2"

John M's theory is a theory from a bully of cowardice. It is based solely on “以小人之心，度君子之腹”. Basically he says - The #1 goal is to be the bully in your school. The #2 goal is to make sure there is no other bully in your school. Let me interpret it with an example. ...So, this kid who had been bullied by you went to learn Karate to avoid being bullied. He started by getting a white belt and working toward a black one. It does not matter the kid's intention was just to better himself so that he won't be bullied. That is because we cannot tell the future, and no one can tell others' intentions now nor in the future. So for fear of your own survival, you double down your bullying and make sure the kid does not get the black belt and potentially becomes a bully. There is no telling what the Karate kid will turn into. After all, why wouldn't the kid who you bullied before will make you pay back? You would if the table is turned. Whatever holes there is with this theory, it can be explained away with that we cannot be certain about others' intentions. The whole theory is very laughable.

Calls each man 'gentleman', and each lady 'woman'...there's no question.

I like JM more and more. He is not playing around. Slaps you with his theory right in the face

I think Dr. Mearsheimer does not read Chinese classic philosophy about how to govern the world: It is not hegemony but Justice, i.e. everyone gets his/her deserved reward based on his / her contribution.

Why does the rule has to be one country win the other has to lose, instead of all the people in both countries striving towards making the cake bigger, without worriing who has the biggest slice? With time, why do human has to compete on scale of country, when technology is globalized…. So many questions not answered , would appreciate deep dive there

The question is wrong from the inception. West has no right to raise or ask this question when the rise of west has never been peaceful. See and compare how many wars were invoked by West in the last two hundred years, including the US, after 1945. Compare it with how many wars Chinese have invoked on other nations in the last 2000 years. I feel that minus west, peace suits every other nation on the globe. West will try its best to invoke and impose new wars on the world. The war is the only way known to west on their pursuit to lead the world.

In the last 50yrs how many military conflicts has China been in; now compare that to the U S. Panama,Granada, Iran,Iraq,Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan,Liberia,Somalia, Eritrea, Haiti, Georgia, Ukraine, Falkland Islands.

EVERYONE Should rise peacefully (in their Right mind)!!

History shows us that the U.S. approach is doomed to failure. In the grand scheme of things, 200 years is just a drop in the bucket.

34:00 Q&A begins

This is a very Western-centric way of thinking about the East.

Amazing! and sad!

Humiliation is not the right word , Japan feels humiliated by US for sure

China was too successful in rising from a poor nation to a peer competitor. I see no hostility except from the USA. It now appear USA prefer China to be poor.

I think the questions are good,but also is china not rising peacefully

What do we see is an aggressive US declining and it's a fact no need to theorise that Mr John.

EVERYONE in the world Should Rise peacefully (by C’mon senses)!!

I have no intention here to imply anything , just wonder was it so bad for Texas people being conquered by US and taken from Mexico in hindsight?

Power is never given, is always taken

The professor argues that a lack of understanding of rivals' intentions is what forces empires to arm themselves. From his point of view, militarism is a consequence of fear. This is true for all empires except the hegemonic empire. Fear also plays an important role in the hegemonic empire, but only as a deception, a propaganda tool, as a means to force citizens to follow imperial policies, fear does not determine the actions of the elites, but the elites constantly scare the citizens, instilling in them that someone hates them and wants to harm them . But in fact, the hegemonic empire has no enemies except those whom it chose and forced to become enemies through aggressive policies towards them. No one wants to be the enemy of a powerful and ruthless monster voluntarily, the demonic supervillain Putin is one of these cowardly weaklings, it took a lot of effort to make him an enemy. The foreign policy of the hegemonic empire is determined by economic interests. Fear is for weak opponents.

Small Correction: If a country is on the rise (China, India, Southeast Asia) Politics trumps Economics, but if it (America, E.U) is in decline, then Tribal-Ethnocentrism trumps economics.

The problem is that John thinks that politics are science; hence politics are far away from science. Politics are opposite side of science.

for people who complaint. its not about chinese mindset at all. do you remember the first premise. there is no higher authority. only china can help themselves, that why whole security is matter. especially if you have big bad neighbor like US. war didnt actually mean a war. most of the time war is about proxy war, support insurgence, sabotage, falseflag etc. chinese sure is a good neighbor, but did he know any US intention. did chinese believe that US is good? or at least -play by the rule? if it didnt play by the rule, can chinese stop it, lawsuit it? in the world where there is no higher authority after the nation?. simple example. chinese already suffer for it. chinese have 2 opium war. chinese mindset didnt matter at all, it was the west who supply the opium.

The answer about hot spot leading to great power conflict didn't age gracefully.

Driving forward by looking in the rearview mirror is a bad idea.

Exactly as another comment said. Can America decline peacefully. On track record na war war and more war