20-03-2015, 09:29 AM
I have found him also to be highly informative too. It is evident, I think anyway, that he gets a lot of input, either officially or unofficially from official sources and has a pretty solid grasp of future US foreign affairs thinking and designs.
There is another long Youtube clip of him predicting the future of the European Union (presented in Poland) where he says that Poland and Turkey will become major European powers in the future. Based on his previous presentations where he explained, for example, that the US made Korea an economic power by the transfer of technology and capital, because it suited the US to have a strong Korea in the region, then I take his predictions about Turkey and Poland to imply the same sort of backing.
However, that presentation was back in 2012 - apparently a very long time ago, because things seem to have changed considerably in Turkey, and it no longer seems to be one of those favoured nation states the US loves and adores anymore.
My take from watching his vids and that of Mearsheimer is that a really gigantic shift has taken place in Europe vis-a-vis NATO and future US dominance. Bush was the first to make a big deal out of "old Europe" ann instead began focusing on "new Europe", meaning those emerging nations to the east. The western Europeans did not, and do not, want to damage their relations with Russia. The US considers isolating Russia to be an essential requirement now that it is gaining back its strength.
Hence Ukraine and hence MH17. But the Europeans quickly saw through that, I think - but for the sake of window dressing had to go along with the US driven sanctions, that I understand aren't especially enforced anyway.
Then we have recently seen the British causing apoplexy in Washington by joining the Chinese AIIB, quickly followed by France, Germany and Italy and quite possibly Australia and Switzerland. The US meanwhile had been lobbying hard for Britain and G7 to act in concert over the AIIB - meaning meekly following the US lead on it. The US has also been lobbying hard in Canberra to ensure that Australia stays out of the AIIB, and it will be interesting, indeed, if Oz snubs that pressure and joins too.
This all suggests quite strongly to me, that a major shift in power is taking place. There is going to be an entirely different world developing in the 21st century and I doubt the US will be able to maintain its dominance as it has expected and planned to do.
What has driven this shift remains unclear - at least to me - but I get the sense that de facto announcement at the NATO summit in 2008 by Dubya, shifting emphasis from old Europe to new Europe spelled the slow end of the NATO alliance. And western Europe is responding accordingly. And the UK is shifting its priorities according to its trading patterns, namely Europe and the far east.
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=6799&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6799&stc=1)
There is another long Youtube clip of him predicting the future of the European Union (presented in Poland) where he says that Poland and Turkey will become major European powers in the future. Based on his previous presentations where he explained, for example, that the US made Korea an economic power by the transfer of technology and capital, because it suited the US to have a strong Korea in the region, then I take his predictions about Turkey and Poland to imply the same sort of backing.
However, that presentation was back in 2012 - apparently a very long time ago, because things seem to have changed considerably in Turkey, and it no longer seems to be one of those favoured nation states the US loves and adores anymore.
My take from watching his vids and that of Mearsheimer is that a really gigantic shift has taken place in Europe vis-a-vis NATO and future US dominance. Bush was the first to make a big deal out of "old Europe" ann instead began focusing on "new Europe", meaning those emerging nations to the east. The western Europeans did not, and do not, want to damage their relations with Russia. The US considers isolating Russia to be an essential requirement now that it is gaining back its strength.
Hence Ukraine and hence MH17. But the Europeans quickly saw through that, I think - but for the sake of window dressing had to go along with the US driven sanctions, that I understand aren't especially enforced anyway.
Then we have recently seen the British causing apoplexy in Washington by joining the Chinese AIIB, quickly followed by France, Germany and Italy and quite possibly Australia and Switzerland. The US meanwhile had been lobbying hard for Britain and G7 to act in concert over the AIIB - meaning meekly following the US lead on it. The US has also been lobbying hard in Canberra to ensure that Australia stays out of the AIIB, and it will be interesting, indeed, if Oz snubs that pressure and joins too.
This all suggests quite strongly to me, that a major shift in power is taking place. There is going to be an entirely different world developing in the 21st century and I doubt the US will be able to maintain its dominance as it has expected and planned to do.
What has driven this shift remains unclear - at least to me - but I get the sense that de facto announcement at the NATO summit in 2008 by Dubya, shifting emphasis from old Europe to new Europe spelled the slow end of the NATO alliance. And western Europe is responding accordingly. And the UK is shifting its priorities according to its trading patterns, namely Europe and the far east.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14