Global political implications 2018

in Balkans 2018 · Crisis 2018 · Danube 2018 · Europe 2018 · Germany 2018 · Great Britain 2018 · Nation 2018 · Philosophy · Politics 2018 · Russia. 2018 · Skepticism 2018 · USA 2018 131 views / 7 comments
86% посетителей прочитало эту публикацию

Balkans  Germany  Great Britain  Europe  USA  World  Ex-USSR



*Panelists discuss the potential and ongoing crises that may erupt or escalate in 2018, as well as their global political implications.

YOUTUBE 2018  What to Worry About in 2018


Antony J. Blinken, Herter/Nitze Distinguished Scholar, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies; Former Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State

Paul B. Stares, General John W. Vessey Senior Fellow for Conflict Prevention and Director of the Center for Preventive Action, Council on Foreign Relations

* The publication is not an editorial. It reflects solely the point of view and argumentation of the author. The publication is presented in the presentation. Start in the previous issue. The original is available at:

* * *


UN. Ukraine and human rights 02.04.2018

СЛОВАКИЯ и МАЙДАН №3 02.04.2018

Британия Глоб и тётя Тереза 02.04.2018

Бисмарк 200 лет назад предупреждал Меркель 02.04.2018

The Strange Death of Europe  02.04.2018

Alarm: one-in-ten are leaving 02.04.2018

Na zarobitki  02.04.2018

«Team Sahra» rettet Europa   02.04.2018

Große Gefährdung an die Welt  02.04.2018



  1. When I saw the crowd out here, I thought there’s obviously a lot of people—(laughter)—worried or at least—well, we have a lot to worry about in our daily lives, but the amount of people here today obviously tells me that not only did they come for the stellar panel, but that everyone has a lot of uncertainty and anxiety maybe about the coming year ahead. So I think we’re going to have a great discussion based off the Council on Foreign Relation’s Preventative Priorities Survey for 2018. It’s really interesting, the matrix that they put together. And we’ll talk about some of that and the challenges in the year ahead.

  2. And we’ve been doing this, as I say, for 10 years now. And it always gets a lot of attention. And I think people like it because it not only looks ahead, but it’s relatively rigorous. It doesn’t just say what could happen, but what would happen if, you know, the contingency actually evolves in the way we specify.

  3. But General McMaster in his public comments and also the National Security Strategy suggest that the U.S. now thinks that North Korea wants it for offensive purposes, either to try to force a reunification on North Korean terms or maybe as a prelude to a war of aggression. And if that’s your fundamental assumption, then the ways that you think about the calculus of deterrence versus preventive strike is totally different.

  4. It’s done a good job in actually building on the foundation that was set. But the third piece of this is actually having a diplomatic strategy to engage the North Koreans and also to demonstrate to China that our purpose is not, much as we may not like this, a regime change, our purpose is to get some control over this runaway nuclear state.

  5. And I think it’s going to take a lot of, you know, heavy lifting from the U.S. to influence its own partners in the Middle East to sort of bring about more responsible outcomes there and to stay engaged and not cede the ground to, you know, countries like Russia who, as you say, have other motives. And so this is going to be a huge challenge, not just this year, but for many years to come.

  6. All the economic indicators are at, in some cases, you know, two-decade highs. And you can start to see unemployment rate dropping, wage growth, all of those things, and that’s going to give Europe some room. Instead of doing sort of crisis management, it’s going to begin them to start thinking about kind of how to tackle some of these longer-term issues.

Добавить комментарий

Your email address will not be published.