It would be akin to admitting German grad students in Physics in 1935. At some point Americans will need to realize that realpolitik dictates you don’t educate your enemy at scale as a policy matter, lest we discover the hard way how this will go wrong.
In 1935, Albert Einstein relocated to Princeton permanently, so it's certainly an odd choice of a year in this context.
Random graduate students won't work on classified projects. The vast majority of non-classified studies will not have any impact on national security for years to come. It's unclear what the actual risks are, beyond the general distrust of foreigners.
Being Jewish (even if lapsed) was more of a disadvantage. U.S. immigration policy at the time was heavily influenced by eugenic ideas, and designed to prevent further Jewish migration, particularly from Eastern Europe. Princeton University (which initially housed the Institute for Advanced Study) had its own anti-Jewish quotas.
> It is quite possible to be both. I look upon myself as a man. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
> Noch eine Art Anwendung des Relativitätsprinzips zum Ergötzen des Lesers: Heute werde ich in Deutschland als "deutscher Gelehrter", in England als "Schweizer Jude" bezeichnet; sollte ich aber einst in die Lage kommen, als "bète noire" präsentiert zu werden, dann wäre ich umgekehrt für die Deutschen ein „Schweizer Jude", für die Engländer ein "deutscher Gelehrter".
Realpolitik does not actually dictate that. It says you pay attention to your interests but with a focus on what is actually achievable, and not focused on things like national/regional pride or unrealistic notions of utopian good.
the situation where europeans feel they are in conflict with their best ally and economic partner says they actually need to relearn the lessons of realpolitik.
Cute pedantry but everyone is aware of this. We’re having a conversation a level deeper and asking, “does this tactic comport with a realpolitik approach?”
The answer is no.
It is laughable to act like it’s the Europeans who feel they are in conflict with their best ally. Actually hilarious for you to suggest this.
no, it's not hilarious, look at the comments here on HN, it's Europeans constantly lamenting, jabbing, complaining. Americans do not spend any time thinking that Canada and Europe are anything but friends; but other side of the border/pond, it's an obsession, born of insecurity and jealousy I would surmise but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Boo hoo, Americans love to poke at Europeans (Europoors/French cowards/dainty Brits/lispy Spaniards/uptight Germans) too.
This is actually what friends do.
The idea of the US actually getting into armed conflict with any of them was totally beyond the pale, yet today the American President's actions and words are causing NATO to reposition assets to defend against a possible American incursion.
It is not Europe who has become totally unhinged, and again I'll say that if the stakes weren't so high, I would be literally laughing at your supposition that it is.
China as the enemy is a fabricated narrative, bc culturally we seem to have a need to have another cold war, we need a "bad guy"
in reality theyre just economic rivals. But then again so are the EU.
in terms of zone of political influence the competition isnt anything crazy (except for the poor taiwanese caught in the middle) and there is no clash of political ideaologies
In my experience Chinese in China don't typically see the US as an enemy. Its a weird framing for them
>"The top uniformed soldier in China, chairman of China's Central Military Commission, stated that war with the United States is inevitable," Coffman said. "That is the first time China has made that statement publicly."
Russia is not an active economic rival. If they weren't actively attacking neighbors and interfere with governments around the world they would be basically irrelevant. I think the situation is radically different from China. Russia seems to have intentionally positioned themselves as enemies b.c it's part of their identity and the government's attempt to retain some relevance on the international stage
I was commenting more on:
>China as the enemy is a fabricated narrative, bc culturally we seem to have a need to have another cold war, we need a "bad guy"
Than the economic rival aspect.
Because that was exactly what the Democratic party narrative was in 2012, with similar views echoed in Europe.
>Romney's claim drew a memorable slam from Obama during a presidential debate: "The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," Obama said, seeking to paint Romney as out of touch on a key foreign policy issue.
>Albright, who similarly criticized Romney in 2012, said she'd "underestimated" Russia back then.
>The EU and Russia are not only neighbours but strategic partners who cooperate on a wide range of bilateral and global challenges, based on joint commitments and shared interests.
>In 2014, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its military intervention in eastern Ukraine following Ukraine’s intention to sign an Association Agreement (AA) with the European Union caught the EU by surprise.
Are you trying to say there is a parallel in that the right voices read the tea leaves correctly and knew that Russia was going to be a crazy rogue state? And that similarly, there are signs China is going to get super belligerent in the future?
I would first say that what happened with Russia, at least to me, did not seem inevitable even with hindsight. I don't think Romney had some keen foresight - more like a lucky guess.
I also don't really see the same happening with China, though it's of course possible. A sudden economic downturn could trigger a need for an external enemy and a conflict.
But a military conflict between the US and China just seems like an absurd fantasy. It'd how you end up with a nuclear war and the death of millions. I don't think the Chinese secretly want this in the long run. They want peace and more business and more wealth
I don't think Romney had some keen foresight either, he just saw the tension that existed between Russia and their neighbors and didn't take the rose tinted one world, everything is going to work out view.
What you term 'crazy rogue state' is just countries looking at their own self interests.
India and Pakistan have been fighting. Thailand and Cambodia have been fighting. Which of those are rogue?
China has made large territory claims in the ocean and is in conflict with it's neighbors over that.
Maybe they are closer to being a rogue state than you think.
>> "The top uniformed soldier in China, chairman of China's Central Military Commission, stated that war with the United States is inevitable," Coffman said.
Do we have something better than some English-language hearsay from five years ago? I tried looking for more on this and found nothing.
I did discover that Xu Qiliang died last June. I doubt he's going to have much influence going forward.
5 years ago is not that long ago and we were at the start of the Biden administration then. With Trump back in office are relationships better or more inflamed?
>I did discover that Xu Qiliang died last June. I doubt he's going to have much influence going forward.
Unelected leadership in top positions are generally not just pushing their own agenda, especially in autocratic governments. Any speech or statement is highly considered and controlled, that statement should be taken as policy unless it is retracted.
Just that Express link already contradicts the quote from Coffman:
> General Xu Qiliang, China’s second in command of the armed forces after President Xi Jinping, said an increase in military spending is need[ed] to counter the ‘Thucydides Trap’.
> Maj. Gen. Richard Coffman, director of the US Army's Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team, saw the remarks as a clear admission war was “inevitable”.
> He said: “The top uniformed soldier in China, chairman of China's Central Military Commission, stated that war with the United States is inevitable.
Allow me to suggest that "this a way to counter the Thucydides trap" cannot actually be paraphrased as "war is inevitable".
Here is the Google Translate rendition of the response. I'll reply to myself with the original Chinese LLM response.
There are pointers here toward finding an official transcript, but the LLM summary tends to suggest it wouldn't be worth the effort, barring some indication that Richard Coffman knew what he was talking about.
Anyway:
-----
Comrade Xu Qiliang, as a leader of the Party and the state, has delivered important remarks on international relations and strategic security on multiple occasions. Regarding the "Thucydides Trap" you mentioned, our verification confirms that in 2021, he did address his views on the United States and great power competition in relevant meetings or speeches. The following are the core points compiled from publicly available reports (the specific wording should be based on official releases):
Key points of Comrade Xu Qiliang's remarks on the United States and the "Thucydides Trap" in 2021:
He pointed out that the current international strategic landscape is undergoing profound changes. The United States and other Western countries are clinging to Cold War thinking, pursuing unilateralism and hegemonism, deliberately creating ideological confrontation and geopolitical competition, and attempting to contain and suppress China's development through means such as the "Indo-Pacific Strategy." Essentially, this is imposing the outdated logic of the "Thucydides Trap" on great power relations, which is a misinterpretation of historical laws and a reversal of the trend of the times.
He emphasized that China has always adhered to the path of peaceful development and firmly pursued a defensive national defense policy. China has no intention of engaging in a zero-sum game of "a rising power inevitably challenges the established power" with the United States. As the world's two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, cooperation between China and the US benefits both sides, while confrontation harms both. They should abandon confrontational thinking, respect each other's core interests and major concerns, manage differences and promote cooperation on the basis of mutual respect, equality, and mutual benefit, and jointly safeguard world peace, stability, and prosperity.
He also pointed out that the "Thucydides Trap" is not historically inevitable. The key lies in whether great powers can transcend the logic of "a rising power inevitably challenges the established power," establish correct perceptions, and build a new type of international relations. China is willing to work with the United States to promote the building of a China-US relationship that is non-confrontational, mutually respectful, and mutually beneficial, providing new ideas for resolving the "Thucydides Trap."
Note:
The above content is a summary based on publicly available reports. The specific original text should be based on the full text of the speeches published by official media such as Xinhua News Agency and the People's Liberation Army Daily. To access the complete speech, it is recommended to obtain authoritative information through the following channels:
* Visit the China Military Online website (http://www.81.cn) or the Ministry of National Defense website (http://www.mod.gov.cn) and search for relevant meeting reports from 2021;
* Consult Volume 4 of "Xi Jinping on Governance of China" and news releases from the National People's Congress, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and important military meetings of that year;
* Follow special reports from central media outlets such as Xinhua News Agency and People's Daily.
For further verification, please provide more specific meeting context (such as the National People's Congress PLA delegation meeting, the Central Military Commission enlarged meeting, etc.) to facilitate a more precise search.
FWIW, Xu Qiliang said that war with the United States is inevitable because of the "Thucydides Trap", the theory that an incumbent power is not going to accept the rise of a competing power. In that case, the war would be started by the current ruling power, not by the rising power. I.e., by the US.
In 2014, Xi Jinping had already said "China fully understands that we need a peaceful and stable internal and external environment to develop ourselves. We all need to work together to avoid the Thucydides trap - destructive tensions between an emerging power and established powers … Our aim is to foster a new model of major country relations."
China kind of avoided the Thicydides trap already it looks like. Trump’s national security strategy document has indicated that the US is going to shore up around the Americas instead of doing the global hegemony strategy. And there have been statements made by US military people (Hegseth maybe) indicating that the US can’t militarily take on China near their coast anymore.
Okay they have a small limited amount of border disputes that are wrapped up in their nationalism. But they're not instigating coupe-detats is other countries to get favorable regimes, or significantly militarily meddling in other regions of the world to get favorable outcomes.
I'd say on the whole, given their size, military strength and economic connections, they've been remarkably restrained - borderline isolationist - when it comes to international interference. I don't see how they're a danger to democracy outside of their own borders - with the exception of maybe troll farms that are trying to shape cultural narratives
It doesn't matter what your experience with ordinary Chinese are. China is not a democracy, they are a fascist dictatorship. Only the senior party officials' opinion matters and they clearly behave as though they see the US as an adversary.
Umm. The best physics work in the world was being done by European academics and admitting them then and earlier was perhaps the best thing that happened both for American science & tech as well as the ability to wage war.
The flip-side of enrolling your enemies is that they form lifelong friendships with both the local students and the country as a whole. It makes it a lot harder to hate a country once you get to know them.
Fortunately for us the Germans were stupid. They chose to murder all of the relatives of those immigrants for ideological reasons instead of using their safety and life as leverage to influence the behavior of the emigres in important scientific positions. The Chinese are known to do exactly this and I don't expect too many students or professors to put their adoptive country over family.
