EPTThe coolest guy I've ever met - Page 2
| Blogs > Shady Sands |
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
SibChil
Sweden502 Posts
Thanks for sharing!  | ||
TheEmulator
28103 Posts
| ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
EDIT* this is probably one of my favourite blog posts from you actually | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On November 02 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote: As for backchannel negotiations, its like most state-to-state negotiations, but without much ideology involved. There's some learning involved to quote K "Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely non-ideological basis since the end of the First World War" Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details. | ||
|
goldenwitch
United States338 Posts
| ||
|
Thurken
961 Posts
| ||
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
| ||
|
Incze
Romania2058 Posts
| ||
|
theNational.
Canada54 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:00 Thurken wrote: It's interesting to know that you met someone who met world leaders and this blog is very well written (as usual), but I'm confused with the "what he said" part. What is surprising or very interesting here? Maybe I missed the point there. Isn't this already well known? I thought he would tell you some stories he heard from those legendary figures. At least here in the U.S. I would estimate that very few people could put together a cogent explanation for something as complicated as the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless you've taken a focused course concerning economics that looked at the underlying causes it would be difficult to pinpoint American economic policies that lead to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. It may be well known in academia, but not among the layman. I certainly wouldn't be able to offer anything near the explanation fielded in this blog if I was put on the spot prior to reading it, and its pretty presumptuous to assume everyone understands these things. | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:03 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Anyone who knows the best way to contact the ex-president must be amazing to get to know We all know now!  | ||
|
Advantageous
China1350 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 02 2012 22:27 Mafe wrote: Even though based on your description of this "guy"it doesnt sound like it, but have you ever asked yourself if he meant to gave you this very task as the first to do? Actually I was wondering about that to myself too. Of course, he wasn't the sort to flaunt around his importance--he never gave public speeches or seminars like the other notable or Nobel-prize-winning professors, he never even wrote newspaper columns. He just seemed perfectly happy advising companies on international trade law and keeping in touch with his younger friends (two names I remember were Bob Zoellick and Bing West.) On November 03 2012 00:13 JieXian wrote: Without much ideology? What does that mean? What do they negotiate for then? I actually have more questions because I don't get the details. Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.) In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.) On November 03 2012 05:08 p4NDemik wrote: At least here in the U.S. I would estimate that very few people could put together a cogent explanation for something as complicated as the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless you've taken a focused course concerning economics that looked at the underlying causes it would be difficult to pinpoint American economic policies that lead to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. It may be well known in academia, but not among the layman. I certainly wouldn't be able to offer anything near the explanation fielded in this blog if I was put on the spot prior to reading it, and its pretty presumptuous to assume everyone understands these things. This--whenever people talk about how the Soviet Union failed because it wasn't a democracy or because it was brutal or because Communism is a failure, I just think back to how one of the Cold Warriors who implemented the anti-Soviet strategy freely admitted that the success of that strategy was really a question of dollars and cents. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On November 03 2012 17:45 Shady Sands wrote: Like raw interests. He said that after Iraq no one wanted to spend national power for ideological goals like democracy or human rights anymore (not that it was like that before, but those goals always served as a useful way to orient public opinion around intervening in other countries.) In his view, Western nations were always striving for those goals ever since the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's fourteen points. He also lumped fascism in with "Western political culture" and categorized World War 2 as a "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". What struck me a lot about him was how, on one hand, he could see through all the BS and brutality in politics and war and yet on the other hand he retained this irrational, almost subconscious love for his country. (btw it's that personality characteristic that I used to model Luo Shuren, the overall army commander, in my war novel.) If I'm understanding you right, shouldn't it have been "Western nations haven't had to conduct foreign policy on a purely ideological basis since the end of the First World War" ,meaning their policies aren't tied to ideology any longer? "German tragedy because they could have gotten all their territorial gains and reversed all the terms in the Treaty of Versailles without resorting to an expansionist, hate-fuelled ideology". This got me really curious too. How? Very interesting blog. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 03 2012 22:29 JieXian wrote: If I'm understanding you right, shouldn't it have been ,meaning their policies aren't tied to ideology any longer? This got me really curious too. How? Very interesting blog. Nope. He meant it in the sense that most of Western foreign policy was, from 1918 to 1991, an extension of ideological conflict | ||
|
snively
United States1159 Posts
On November 02 2012 15:48 Shady Sands wrote: K was an elderly gentleman who looked a bit like Gandalf, without the beard. if i met someone like that, they would be the most intersesting person i had ever met too :D | ||
| ||
