,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Thanks for asking, @NPRinskeep. A competent administration would have set up a package of things it wants - INF, Ukraine, espionage, etc., and coupled it to: "Here are all the things we have planned to counter you. Some stuff you don't even know about. But you won't like it." /1
@NPRinskeep They'd add: "We're here with NATO, speaking as one, because we did our homework. We've got the receipts on your mischief. So here's how it's going to go: We want to stay engaged and partner with you. But that's too hard now, so here's do-able stuff you can do right now." /2
@NPRinskeep Then add: "We will not let you pick us off on one issue at a time. The issue here is *your sustained attack on the international status quo*, and that's going to stop now, or we will take measures you will not enjoy, like, say, in Ukraine." (Which no one is talking about now.) /3
@NPRinskeep "We will take military, economic, and diplomatic measures that will hurt, because we have an alliance of a half billion people and more money than God. You skated a lot under Bush and Obama, and you own Trump. Time for you to decide how much you want a Cold War." /4
@NPRinskeep Instead, we're getting bogged down on one thing at a time, each of which is only dealt with by whatever part of the USG is paying attention to it. Totally uncoordinated. INF is a good example: "Because of cheating. Er, China. Um, but for conventional stuff. Or nukes. Uh..." /5
@NPRinskeep So: Decide what you want from an actual Russia policy. Take it to your allies. Get them on board. Make a full-spectrum response. And then keep *paying attention to it.* Make it stick.
One last point about INF. In the 80s, we had a "talk and deploy" strategy. /6
One last point about INF. In the 80s, we had a "talk and deploy" strategy. /6
@NPRinskeep We said: "Get right with us or we'll keep deploying these systems that scare you." Now, we have a "talk and run" strategy: "You don't like this treaty? Fine, neither do we. We're going to go race the Chinese over systems we haven't built yet. Bye. Good luck, NATO." /7
@NPRinskeep This is a flat failure of Diplomacy 101. There was no "or else" in the INF negotiation, because *we didn't want one*. Because we only pretended to want the treaty. And the Russians baited us into letting them out of it. So dumb. Always something for nothing with this admin. /8x
