Whats better than one historians view

06. März 2022

- against Maers­hei­mer? Seven his­to­ri­ans views against Mearsheimers.

One of which has just publis­hed a book about Nato enlar­ge­ment, has media trai­ning, smi­les at the men­ti­on of now the­re having been a war thats bro­ken out, twice - becau­se of an under­pin­ning noti­on, that her book will sell well (or may­be becau­se she values the prai­se so much) - and then over­en­un­cia­tes reac­tions for the came­ra, becau­se she had Zoom trai­ning as well, oh and did I men­ti­on the fil­ler laughs?

Sor­ry dont know a thing about the rea­so­ning in the video yet, I pre­su­me it is excel­lent, when the Hoo­ver Insti­tu­te car­ri­ed in seven peop­le to speak on the topic, and this is only part one of an ongo­ing deba­te in a new ongo­ing series.

The intro­duc­tion state­ment is, that Mear­s­hei­mer is fake news though. Know your audience.

edit: Oh sor­ry, reached the con­tent part. Mear­s­hei­mers the­sis is not true becau­se of mono­cau­sa­li­ty. So by that logic, Nato expan­si­on doesnt mat­ter pro­por­tio­nal­ly to how many other rea­sons you can come up with, right?

Hinterlasse eine Antwort