Ask a foreign policy scholar anything

>doesn't see the deeper meaning

It's in a transitional period. The focus of the world will have to shift to terrorism, as many countries have adopted a "not my problem" attitude to it, until it affects them directly.

China and Russia are both trying to expand their spheres, with varying degrees of success. America will either have to take charge, and become stronger, or will fall behind and lose its global hegemony.

What do you think of nazi germany and the holocaust?

No questions right now, just wanted to tell that you I like your threads.

Why are all """foreign policy experts""" neocon?

Will we see China take over the US role in the TPP, or to what extent will China adopt key passages and language from the TPP to negotiate trade with SEA and PacRim countries?

I'm not. The US should expand its influence however it can, but fighting in every war is stupid.

Bad move, as it lost so many good scientists to the allies. From a logical perspective they would have been good to the scientists, but nope, they decided "fuck that".

Thank you very much.

On a scale of 1 to Chrysippus, how much is Vladimir Putin laughing at us right now?

China will be eager to try and fill the US' role; however they are currently tightening their economy due to the risk of "popping their economic bubble" as it were. Its likely that, should their economy start soaring again, they will be able to take over the role, unless the US starts aggressively pursuing bilateral deals with the TPP countries, or else forming a new one/rejoining.

>Chrysippus
Love the joke; The division in the US regarding the allegations of Trump-Russia connection (which has no evidence, nor would it even be a crime) plays directly into Putin's hand. I'd say that, assuming the allegations and leaks continue, Putin will hit Chrysippus levels before the end of Trump's term(s?).

What are the odds that the EU will be able to fill any of the power vacuum left by the decline of the United States?

Based on current situation? Low. The problem with the EU is that it is largely run by Germany; Germany's strict economic policies abound. Europe as a whole, other than a few select countries like England and Poland, seems to have given up on Hard Power as a whole. Also them getting bombed and raped by migrants won't help.

How likely is it that the USA, Russia and china ally with each other to consolidate the worlds military power?

>Also them getting bombed and raped by migrants won't help.
I'm confused by this language coming from a foreign policy scholar. Can you elaborate?

How likely is it that the Balkans announce reunification and love towards each other? Next to zero. Unless a massive threat rises, it's unlikely the three will ever get along. Consider it to be USA vs Russia, with China shifting wherever convenient. Its unlikely that all three will ever agree, due to different goals, governments, etc. It is possible that Russia will at some point become an ally of the US, much like seemed possible with Russia, before Putin took power. If that happens it's likely China will view the US as a much more extant threat, and work to undermine it (even more).

Assuming Trump suffers a relatively quick and humiliating fall from grace at the hands of the IC, do you think they'll pursue a proportional response to Russia's interference or do you think they'll escalate the situation?

I'm blunt in general, the occupation (if being a grad student can really be called that) doesn't imply being refined necessarily.

Basically the chaos of the migrant crisis will make the government's inefficient, and terrorist attacks even more commonplace. Imagine the entire country as a no-go zone. Governments would lose control if the situation keeps up. If it reaches the scale of "insurgency", for lack of a better word, that was seen in the Vietnam war, many European countries will be done for.

Is Merkel genuinely testing the waters to abandon transatlanticism or is she trying to build up German military efforts to meet NATO spending targets while making it seem like she's not kowtowing to Trump?

I feel like you're just a /pol/tard larping tbqhwu

There is no evidence that Trump colluded, and even if he did, it's very unlikely to be an actual crime. Russia did try to interfere though, and I think that at some point, either Trump himself, or the IC alone will go after Russia. Russia is likely to take any kind of response as provocation and escalate. War seems unlikely, just lots of tension. A Proxy war between the US and Iran and/or Syria or North Korea is possible, but not very likely.

Why was the western world so slow to react to Nazi Germany's currency games in the mid 30s? Why keep cutting them slack on trade deals even after they refused to devalue their currency and make their foreign trade noncompetitive?

I'm not, but as I have no way to prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt (without outing my identity online, which I'm not keen to do) you are free to think that.

>Basically the chaos of the migrant crisis will make the government's inefficient, and terrorist attacks even more commonplace
The most recent terrorist attacks in Britain happened by second generation immigrants who were radicalized over the internet and then by visiting their home countries, I see that as different than the migrant crisis which is being managed by multiple countries from Turkey to the Balkans to Germany. At what stage do you see government mismanagement coming into play that will result in direct terrorist attacks from the migrants themselves? Or are there any current examples you can share?

For the same reason that the west was so slow to react to Germany annexing Austria, sudetenland, Memel, etc etc. No one wanted another war, so they let them off with a "just this once" everytime.

Hard to tell. Merkel is unlikely to permanently sever ties with the US, incase a much more liberal president comes along, with which she can agree with more.

With Russia breathing down Europe's neck, she would be an idiot to reject THE global military power.

Post a time stamped student ID with all the identifiable info blacked out, that should do it.

ISIS has claimed that they already have cells in place, and that they are using the crisis to get into countries. Whether they are truly deeply embedded or not cannot be known. I would say that when the Muslims make up ~15% of the population, they will begin a wave of terror. This video (youtube.com/watch?v=-oDbvuNlk3E) provides an interesting look at their strategy, if not entirely correct.

>For the same reason that the west was so slow to react to Germany annexing Austria, sudetenland, Memel, etc etc. No one wanted another war, so they let them off with a "just this once" everytime.
Why do you think not providing subsidies for German exports would lead to war? They could quite literally not do anything, and let the market take care of itself.

Will this do? Had backround previously, but file was too big to upload.

One of the reasons they got away with foreign trade competitiveness was that, around the 30's, Hitler introduced a policy of only exporting raw materials to smaller nations, or those within their own sphere. As best as possible at least. England might feel that they were being scum, but they weren't being directly hurt as much as they could have been, so they did nothing.

Bump?

Anyone?

1. What do you think will happen to the SDF after ISIS is defeated? Is there a likelihood that the regional powers in Iraq and Syria would work together to defeat the SDF? Would the United States continue supporting the SDF?

2. What do you think about the recent developments in Afghanistan with the claims that Iran and Russia are supporting the Taliban? Is there any truth to the claim?

3. Which country does Kashmir truly belong to?

Is the EU a good thing?

What's happening with Vietnam, with regards to the SCS and the ongoing conflict with China? They seem caught between the two camps. Are they really attempting to break with China?

Adding to this one, is the EU going to survive? Kaiser Merkel's statements almost make me wonder if we're about to see a resurgence of EU consolidation and international strength/leadership.

Are we ever going to see a resolution of the Kurdish problem?

1. Hard to tell. Assad is likely to wage an extermination war against them. Trump seems truly pissed about Assads use of chemical weapons, and is likely to try and depose Assad, likely indirectly, by arming the SDF.

2. Russia is pretty much re-starting the great game; given that top military brass believe it is so, I would consider it likely. It could force a confrontation with Russia, but Russia is likely to back down; deny that they did it, but stop doing it. It's a handy inconvnience to the US, but not anything war-worthy.

3. IMO Kashmir belongs to itself. Although any Kashmiri state would unfortunately likely be a puppet of China or India.

The concept is good, but the execution has been terrible. Its effectively a supranation run by Germany.
What with the EU threatening to sanction Poland and Hungary if they don't take in refugees, I think it's likely the more liberal states will consolidate, and the less liberal will leave and form their own group.

If you believe this you'll be a shit foreign policy scholar. Terrorist attacks kill infinitesimally few people and the fact that you think this will reach the scale of a national insurgency is laughable at best.

They praised the recent FONOP around Mischief Reef, and FONOPs give them breathing room.

It seems unlikely they will fully/publically break from China, unless China is severely weakened, or loses interest in the region (which is very unlikely).

Ever heard of Lebanon?

Depends on a lot. If Assad is overthrown, the Kurds might establish a more official state, but if he remains, they aren't likely to get statehood.

>1. Hard to tell. Assad is likely to wage an extermination war against them. Trump seems truly pissed about Assads use of chemical weapons, and is likely to try and depose Assad, likely indirectly, by arming the SDF.

So what would be the best bet for the SDF in this scenario? They don't seem to have any friends in the region and the US is likely to abandon them when their own interests are met. How should they be gearing up for the defeat of ISIS?

>2. Russia is pretty much re-starting the great game; given that top military brass believe it is so, I would consider it likely. It could force a confrontation with Russia, but Russia is likely to back down; deny that they did it, but stop doing it. It's a handy inconvnience to the US, but not anything war-worthy.

So how do you rate the survival chance of the current Afghan government out of 10? Do you think that they could be deposed by the Taliban? And what do you think of the recent protests in Kabul and the growing tension within the Afghan govt?

> IMO Kashmir belongs to itself

So what is your opinion on the pro-Pakistani movement currently marching through the streets?

Best bet would be to push as deep into ISIS as they can, seize the land before the Government can. Working on methods to shoot down drones that ISIS is beginning to use, alongside artillery and armored vehicles.

>comparing lebanon to europe
kek

2. Depends on a lot, if the US stays in, very good. If they leave, close to negative. Afghanistan is such a odd state, with so many different cultures and languages. Its possible it will balkanize.

"Because of its financial power and diversity in its heyday, Lebanon was referred to as the "Switzerland of the East" during the 1960s, and its capital, Beirut, attracted so many tourists that it was known as "the Paris of the Middle East"."

3. Its likely another few skirmishes are game; Kashmir is unlikely to get independence unless another full scale war breaks out, and or the UN decides to mediate.

I don't see Europe ever reaching the levels of chaos Lebanon faced. In the case of Lebanon, there were regional players out to profit from the conflict and supported and armed their favored factions. Will that ever happen in Europe?

How long until Saudi Arabia stops having so much influence on the Middle East ?

Just because some tourists gave it a charming name has nothing to do with the reality of social and economic conditions on the ground. a lot of talk about lebanon in those days had a tendency to ignore the country's underlying problems for a narrative of westernization and liberal democracy. If that were really the case there wouldn't have been a civil war

Iran, and others, have a lot to gain from a Muslim overthrowal, Russia has a lot to gain from anything that weakens Europe. Its possible.

When Iran, Syria and Qatar have been dealt with, most likely.

It was a great country, high HDI, etc. It was a powderkeg of Shia, Sunni and Christians, and it went off. With Shia and Sunnis pouring into Europe...

What do you think of Brazil's current political situation?
What is Brazil's position in nowadays Global Geopolitics?

What do you think will be the answer to the refugee/terrorism crysis? Especially from the EU

They have the resources to be strong, but alongside Venezuela, bad governing has messed with that.

Regional power to be sure, but not a lot of soft power, just hard.

The moment the US stops backing them in a major way, I suspect. Or is that just attempting to keep a leash on them?

The ideal answer will be setting up safe zones in Syria, so the refugees don't have to leave. I think the most likely is that it will continue unabated until at least one country goes Sharia.

When's the next Chinese Happening? The next Boxer Rebellion, the next Great Leap Forward? They seem to have one every couple of decades

Thanks for the answer, but, what do you mean with soft or hard power?

Little bit of both; Saudi always kow-tows to the US president, while scheming behind his back. Once Iran, Syria, etc are gone, the US won't need to care about them (assuming it achieves oil independence), so they will lose a lot of power.

How would Iran gain from a Sunni Muslim insurrection? They already have a tough time dealing with the blowback from 30 years of supporting terror in parts of the Middle East.

Consider this, I ask you to give me some of your chocolate bar. You say yes because you like me. Thats soft power. Or, I say "give it to me or I'll beat the shit out of you". Thats Hard power. Basically military strength vs diplomatic.

Instability in general is good for them, and the Shia government would try to insurrect of their own. It's near win-win situation, unless that insurrection ends up targeting them next.

Depends on a lot. If China is intent on aligning with US, it could be a US-South Korean-Japan-China invasion of North Korea; if not, its likely to be a trade conflict with the US, that potentially leads to war.

Nowadays, what are the possibilities of the refugee crisis destroy western society as we know?
If it does crumble, would today's third world countries become the bastion of the old western values?

Sorry but, if you really are a "foreign policy scholar" and compare Lebanon (a small state without industry, surrounded by warring countries) to Germany (highest exporter, leader of the EU, highly educated and one the most industrialized countries in the world, surrounded by stable, peaceful nations), than your doctorate must be from a diploma mill. Your blatant bias is worty of a pol/troll and frankly, I haven't really seen anything all that insightfull in your threads so far.
I would recommended other anons to take everything doc J says with large grain of salt.

Im sorry if im bothering you, but what makes you think Brazil is a hard power in south america?

Trump talked a lot of shit about China during his campaign, do you really think he and Xi could align like that?

All of western society falling seems unlikely. Some of it, perhaps. I don't see third world countries becoming bastions, largely due to the corruption in most of them, but it's possible, if improbable.

No one wants North Korea to nuke someone. China would take a lot of political flak if they let NK do that, so they are likely to make at least token efforts to get them to stop.

Why did North Korea bother to develop a nuclear armament when they already have all the deterrent they need and moreso besides between their conventional artillery and the fuckhueg reconstruction cost that would be involved in reintegrating their people into SK, who would obviously be the group that would administrate any defeated NK, which the South Koreans themselves don't want to bother with?

Lebanon has a very large HDI, and other such "western" things. True, Germany has almost 3x the per capita GDP, 1/2 the poverty, etc. But, in terms of history, Lebanon is the best modern example. I can hardly use ancient Persia.

I haven't finished my PHD yet, (as could be ascertained by my student ID being current).

Everything that goes that far into what-ifs should be taken with a grain of salt, of course. I'm not saying that it will for sure happen, just that it is my prediction that it could happen.

What's your take on US-Iran relations? At how will they affect US-Russia relations?

Because conventional artillery only goes so far. A nuke can irradiate land, so hitting Seoul with one would make (some of) the land unlivable.

Iran is actively baiting the US. It seems unlikely anything will change unless the regime is overthrown, and or the US invades.

Russia sees Iran as a useful thorn in the US' side, and is likely to diplomatically defend Iran, but may choose not to fight the US militarily over them, if push comes to shove.

Nuclear weapon irradiation is enormously overblown and not a particular threat; you don't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki uninhabitable today, do you? The isotopes that yield big explosions don't go for lots of decay (if they did, the isotopes would be too unstable to make a bomb in the first place). You could give a couple of thousand people cancer, but that's not going to stop or deter an attack.

Besides which, the North Koreans had years after the collapse of their soviet benefactor in which the lack of a nuclear program didn't lead to America eating their regime. And by far the biggest deterrent they have is their own poverty and backwardness, again, why build another when they're already essentially unassailable?

Following on from that, how clear-eyed do you think Kim and the NK leaders are about their nuclear aims? I mean, they know that if they ever actually launched a nuke the US would obliterate them, right? What's their long-term goal?

No problem at all. I should clarify that a nation is not a hard power, it possesses hard power.

Brazil has ~1.4 Million reserve forces, 220k army forces, and 400k military police. Alongside this it has a large air force (for its area at least).

The survival of Kim. They are just sane enough to realize the US REALLY doesn't want anyone nuked. North Korea could use a cobalt bomb, or some other type of "salted bomb", intended to irradiate land for a long time. I believe Cobalt makes land unlivable for 120 years, maybe more.

Aside from that they have nerve and chemical weapons.

I see now, thank you.
And it also has the technology for nuclear bombs.

Sort of. I believe they stopped that in the 90's, officially at least. As far as I am aware, they have most of what they need tech wise, but not the material to build it.

I'm sorry, I'm not familliar with US student IDs, (and you calling yourself Dr. Johnson gave me the impression you already had a PhD).

I was very much disturbed by your comment on Germany being raped and bombed by refugees. Compared to Britain and France, Germany has had far less islamistic terrorism eventhough the influx of refugees in 15/16 was higher. The only thing that has changed in any significane since the refugee crisis is a slight increase in the crime rate especially among foreigners. It should be differentiated however, that this increase was by migrants from mainly north africa and Afghanistan, where the migrants have almost no chance of recieving permenant residency and behave accordingly. The refugees from Iraq/Syria have a chance of recieving asylum and or thus mostly well behaved, I think a person with your knowledge shoud differentiate and generally be more aware of that.

Uhm nerve and chemical weapons are the same thing. Do you really think Kim would devolp a salted nuke??? Not even the Cold War powers would do somthing that idiotic

Thoughts on David Shambaugh's assessment of China in the next 10 years?

No problem, I should have made it more clear.

One of the reasons I focus on Germany is based on the assumption of the three step Jihad, they are nearing the second stage. Interestingly enough Belgium has somewhere around 14% Muslim population (non-catholic Christian and other religions counted in this, so exact number unknown), whereas islam is 5% in Germany, but they haven't hit second stage.