Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #nickgvosdev
Most recents (5)
Concur with @KofmanMichael on this, and contributions of @JimGoldgeier, @BrunoTertrais & @shifrinson on this. The history matters. We are dealing with the fallout of narratives from the 1990s and early 2000s. 1/
@KofmanMichael @JimGoldgeier @BrunoTertrais @shifrinson If I (#NickGvosdev, in personal capacity here) may quote two things from a piece that appeared in sister journal @TheNatlInterest ... "Even as Central European states explicitly (and understandably) sought protection from a revanchist Russia, ... 2/
@KofmanMichael @JimGoldgeier @BrunoTertrais @shifrinson @TheNatlInterest existing Western European NATO members could marshal political support to admit them to the alliance only if such a threat didn’t exist." AND " ... it was very difficult to find a level of allied commitment that would not be seen as too threatening to Russia while reassuring 3/
@RadioFreeTom #NickGvosdev here. Since I teach History of the Cold War for @HarvardExt, let me add my two cents. In class one, we look at the impact of 1917 and the attempt to reach a consensus during World War II. In class, we date start of Cold War to 1946, based on 1) Iran situation ... 1/
@RadioFreeTom @HarvardExt 2) Stalin's 1946 speech; 3) stopping of travel between the Korean zones; 4) breakdown of Allied coordination on Germany ... continues through 1947 and 1948 based on how elections in Eastern Europe shake out, and the rejection of the Marshall Plan. Symbolically by March 1948, 2/
@RadioFreeTom @HarvardExt when USSR walks out of the Allied Control Council for Germany and declares it no longer capable of functioning, we can say the WWII Grand Alliance is definitely over. Push to create a single Western Germany and NATO in 1949 confirms that. 3/
Continuing the conversation started at @RadioFreeTom and with the contributions by @JonNeeter and @bren1008, we are fundamentally grappling with the question of narratives: why do we do what we do in the world? 1/
@RadioFreeTom @JonNeeter @bren1008 This is what the @carnegiecouncil U.S. global engagement project has been trying to do since 2018 ... what are the frameworks we are using to situate our role? 2/ carnegiecouncil.org/publications/a…
@RadioFreeTom @JonNeeter @bren1008 @carnegiecouncil The Afghan disaster is putting into stark relief that we may be moving away from some of the post-9/11 assumptions and statements: 1) that in order to prevent "global terrorism" from finding homes, the United States needs to strengthen all states around the world. 3/
That the Taliban feel the need to state they will guarantee women's rights (albeit "under the limits of Islam") in 2021--a statement they never felt compelled to make in 1996--suggests that they are aware that the situation today is different. 1/
Statements don't mean much unless backed by deeds, and if actions contradict the statements, then we know how much they are worth. Also of interest is an apparent recognition of the concept of sovereignty--that other states and countries live under their own laws. ... 2/
A major issue with the 1990s Taliban was their eagerness and willingness to export their revolution to neighboring states. Again, statements have to be backed up by action. 3/
A Biden Administration Poses Few Benefits for Russia | Russia Matters russiamatters.org/analysis/biden…
This was authored at @russia_matters by Doorstep co-host #NickGvosdev. It ties in with the tweets yesterday about the shape of a Biden foreign policy team in that Russia policy could be a unifier among restorationists, reformers and progressives.
Restorationists and reformers see Russia as a revisionist power challenging both the status quo and democracy, but progressives will find fault with the Russian record on human rights, including LGTBQ+ issues, democratic governance and income inequality.
