Hal Brands

Under a rather dramatic title authors basically want to convey idea as old as time itself - learn from history otherwise you are destined to repeat mistakes from the times past.

That being said it is interesting that they chose the title and perspective of tragedy plays from ancient Greeks. But I guess that at times when people do not read anything longer that a paragraph and where news outlets place timing information on their articles dramatic title like this has its uses. And history is suffocating because no 60-minutes show can give you proper perspective, reading and investigation is what is required and even then wrong conclusions happen.

In regard to the book itself while it does give a clear picture of the ways world powers worked on creating stability from 1700's to 1918 and then from 1947 to current times it quickly steps into the narrative of messianic destiny of United States.
I agree that United States played very important role post-WW2 and immensely helped the creation of free-market society as we know it today but what started as alliance of equals with United States as primus inter pares deteriorated after fall of Soviet Union into alliance where everyone else is subdued (very like Athens and Delian League or Roman Empire with their allies that then became client states).

Repeating the mistake of 1918 and humiliating the former Soviet Union by supporting corrupt politicians (this is time when oligarchs of Russia became rich btw during the shady period where national resources where "privatized") United States basically paved the way for the Russian revanchism today. All the so called dictators across the Europe were instated by the US and their allies because these were the forces used in the Cold War period against Soviet Union. And now question is why are these dictators raising back to power - they never left but were conveniently left alone until they decided to change sides or to question their allegiances. It is interesting how industrial espionage scandals that caused discord with France are not mentioned - and this was something going on between the allies.

Even when one looks at events of September 2011 ti is weird that (considering the parties included int he assault) Saudi Arabia remained untouched while god forsaken (but strategically important) areas of Afghanistan were target of a massive invasion. Not even trying to hide the reasons for the military actions taken (following old maxim that past is past) just shows how powers to be are sure nobody will ever question them.

Basically what happened is that US in their pursuit of world dominant role forced everyone to obey by a strict set of rules while themselves act by no restriction whatsoever. Even UN is pushed aside and accounts for nothing (unless it is suitable depending on the situation). All of this and rather unilateral decisions on some actions (like Iraq invasion) only helped to deepen the wedge between US and its allies and also rest of the world. When one checks the way conflict areas are treated it is hard not to expect resistance - for all those people only changed a dictatorship for utter chaos of various transitional governments that prove to be either completely ineffectual or corrupt to the core. On economic end situation is no better as poor countries are left even poorer without any perspectives except to be used as resources to be harvested.

By the logic of the authors US needs to increase military spending and that is the only way forward. I agree that they need to counter China, Russia and other states in that way. But to build military only without providing economical growth option (both abroad and local) is basically turning Athena to Sparta. And rule by the sword will only bring forth more and more opposition.

US is not doing nothing new on the world scene. They are great country with lots of power - economical and military that tries to build its supremacy and lead role and make it lasting for centuries. Initially aim was to help other countries and raise the standard of world society but from 1990's they remained the only only one super-power and everyone who objected was slowly declared as authoritarian country. In order to grow the values one must invest into them and not force them, otherwise all effort will backfire. Same is with economic aspect - while free international market works wonders mechanisms needs to exist that will enable local populace to prosper. Otherwise only resentment will rise as people see their jobs go away to far-away countries because various corporations want to slash the tax fees and pay their workers miserable sums. What authors seem to have forgotten is that in situation when one is constantly on the lookout for the job in order to eat one cannot think about how his sacrifice is for the greater good. This is why 1930's happened and were "overlooked". Economic situation throughout the world was so bad that thinking about fighting war half a world away was something nobody wanted to hear.

All in all interesting book that gives good insight into the reasoning of US external politics. Authors did not elaborate on some of the key things (like supporting repressive regimes and economical issues) - these were shyly mentioned in a sentence or two - and instead put their focus on military power and prowess as only means of keeping the control. According to the authors everything else is price to be paid by common people in the areas affected.

And if history taught us anything is that societies relying on military might and continuous warfare always have great problems. Hopefully this is something that will not take place and more cooler and reasonable heads will prevail.… (más)

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has killed hundreds of thousands of people and infected millions while also devastating the world economy. The consequences of the pandemic, however, go much further: they threaten the fabric of national and international politics around the world. As Henry Kissinger warned, "The coronavirus epidemic will forever alter the world order."

What will be the consequences of the pandemic, and what will a post-COVID world order look like? No institution is better suited to address these issues than Johns Hopkins University, which has convened experts from within and outside of the university to discuss world order after COVID-19. In a series of essays, international experts in public health and medicine, economics, international security, technology, ethics, democracy, and governance imagine a bold new vision for our future.

Essayists include: Graham Allison, Anne Applebaum, Philip Bobbitt, Hal Brands, Elizabeth Economy, Jessica Fanzo, Henry Farrell, Peter Feaver, Niall Ferguson, Christine Fox, Jeremy A. Greene, Hahrie Han, Kathleen H. Hicks, William Inboden, Tom Inglesby, Jeffrey P. Kahn, John Lipsky, Margaret MacMillan, Anna C. Mastroianni, Lainie Rutkow, Kori Schake, Eric Schmidt, Thayer Scott, Benn Steil, Janice Gross Stein, James B. Steinberg, Johannes Urpelainen, Dora Vargha, Sridhar Venkatapuram, and Thomas Wright.

In collaboration with and appreciation of the book's co-editors, Professors Hal Brands and Francis J. Gavin of the Johns Hopkins SAIS Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins University Press is pleased to donate funds to the Maryland Food Bank, in support of the university's food distribution efforts in East Baltimore during this period of food insecurity due to COVID-19 pandemic hardships.… (más)

Workmanlike prose, but Brands does a nice job of avoiding either the hysterical right (WE HAD TO SEND THEM WEAPONS OR THE RUSKIES WOULD BE IN TEXAS BY NOW!) or conspiratorial left (AMERICAN SENT THEM WEAPONS AND THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER GONE WRONG IN LATIN AMERICA), organizing his material well, and providing nice capsules at the beginning and end of each chapter. The story is tremendously complex, but it more or less tells itself: U.S. and Soviet interests combine with violent swings of the political pendulum (Cuban revolution leads to counterinsurgencies elsewhere which lead to resurgent left movements which leads to brutal military crackdowns which lead to incompetent leftist governments which lead to military coups etc etc...) to create a bloodbath that was seemingly solved only because the various parties were exhausted, either to death as in the case of the Soviets, or to a near enough state as in the Central American nations.

Highly recommended academic history, which takes an appropriately pessimistic tone over all political developments.… (más)