>>4522078

>>4522078

It is very interesting to hear a clearly intelligent liberal individual's point of view on the global trends; the fall of globalism, populism in US and EU as well as China's renewed international dominance.

The interesting points, which more often than not is matters of fact, where I find myself diverging from John Sawers world view is:

1. The character of Trump and his capabilities to lead.

2. The military Generals, which surround Trump, provides a more Realistic view of foreign policy than the politicians' 'diplomatic solutions', which Sawers finds more suitable in many critical issues (he mentions North Korea, which is a hilarious example).

3. The trust in the monetary policies of Globalism, which he argues only failed, because "we were slow to realize that the beneficiaries of [globalistic monetary policies] were few, and those who did not benefit was very large. And that fed into our political systems."

Further on this point. How can Sawers not see that this is a major flaw? And obviously the populist movement is grounded on the fact that the monetary policies were not sustainable?

He doesn't elaborate on this concession that he made.

1. He argues that the two party system of US and UK are very weak at handling populism, because it will infiltrate the two parties instead of creating seperate parties for themselves.

2. In my eyes this doesn't seem like a problem at all, it only becomes a problem, when one puts a lot of value upon 'branding' of parties ('the optics').

What ya think?

>>4522078

>>4522078

It is very interesting to hear a clearly intelligent liberal individual's point of view on the global trends; the fall of globalism, populism in US and EU as well as China's renewed international dominance.

The interesting points, which more often than not is matters of fact, where I find myself diverging from John Sawers world view is:

1. The character of Trump and his capabilities to lead.

2. The military Generals, which surround Trump, provides a more Realistic view of foreign policy than the politicians' 'diplomatic solutions', which Sawers finds more suitable in many critical issues (he mentions North Korea, which is a hilarious example).

3. The trust in the monetary policies of Globalism, which he argues only failed, because "we were slow to realize that the beneficiaries of [globalistic monetary policies] were few, and those who did not benefit was very large. And that fed into our political systems."

Further on this point. How can Sawers not see that this is a major flaw? And obviously the populist movement is grounded on the fact that the monetary policies were not sustainable?

He doesn't elaborate on this concession that he made.

1. He argues that the two party system of US and UK are very weak at handling populism, because it will infiltrate the two parties instead of creating seperate parties for themselves.

2. In my eyes this doesn't seem like a problem at all, it only becomes a problem, when one puts a lot of value upon 'branding' of parties ('the optics').

What ya think?