I agree to some extent. However, there's a very strange part later on. It basically implies that "CF is good and CV is bad," but completely ignores the fact that many of CF's targets are also in the city.
My rather personal reflections on what "international historians" did in the past and ought to do in our time of troubles (and dissolution). Suggestions are welcome. https://t.co/lrUhYh7dhg
@MatejRisko DPRKs at most gained some economic convenience in terms of consumer products. But considering their tolerance (not in a good way), this hardly constitutes leverage. Therefore, they certainly have almost complete independence.
@MatejRisko The US has consistently pressured China to participate in controlling North Korea, and the answer is that China simply does not have the capability. The US, however, felt that China was condoning the DPRK. As for Russia, that's even less likely?
@MatejRisko First, North Korea has never been a vassal state of China. China has absolutely no real influence over DPRK, and cooperation is not close. (I could name a string of countries with much closer military cooperation with North Korea.)
First: He likes to cite. Second: This book was once a bestseller (and not just in China). I don't think the target audience is undergraduate IR students. So of course, he should cite a bestseller instead of a theoretical book! Is that so hard to understand?
I completely agree with the criticism of Allison. The invention and fabrication of concepts in IR has been a long-standing trend, and Allison's at least has some practical significance. As for the reasons given for "why China likes it," they are mostly far-fetched and fabricated.
If you simply want to express your impressions, that's understandable, but you'd better rephrase it rather than speculating about someone else's intentions. At least in China's case, the reference is merely to serve their concept of "strategic stability."
Even those familiar with the controversial theory of "breakpoint" will not use a 10% threshold. Moreover, this theory is used for army tactical formation, not missile... How can someone be so stupid and still have the nerve to show off?
"collapsing Iranian will to continue the conflict" - This is pure speculation, or to put it more bluntly, wishful thinking. This shouldn't be the kind of content found in analytical articles.