Thread by @ambassadorbrief

Weekly Geopolitical Brief

Three stories:

A new arms race? The Trump Admin suspended its obligations under the INF treaty – a landmark US-Russia arms control agreement, which bans land-based missiles with a 500–5,500km range. Their rationale: ongoing Russian violations.

The Russians have been deploying 9M729 missiles, which violate the Cold War era agreement. Washington’s ask is that Russia eliminates the offending 9M729s, and returns to “full and verifiable compliance”, or the US suspension escalates into a full withdrawal in six months.

Analysts are divided on Washington’s decision. Many are lamenting the slow shredding of two generations of Cold War arms control agreements. But others note that Moscow still has six months to play ball, and a US withdrawal would free its hands to counter (an unconstrained) China

Trade talks grind on: Trade talks in Washington last week ended without big breakthroughs, but with (i) US Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer to lead another delegation to China soon (ii) Trump suggesting it’s “possible” he meets with Xi later in February.

.@niubi argued “of course the Chinese want another Trump-Xi meeting. They know they cannot trust any agreement that is not made directly with the US president, and they believe that if they can get a... meeting with Trump, they will probably end up with a more favourable deal.”

Warnings of a Sino-Russian alliance: The US Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Dan Coats publicly assessed that “China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s, and the relationship is likely to strengthen in the coming year.”

.@GrahamTAllison & Dmitri Simes argued that Washington must revise its policy toward Moscow to break the Sino-Russian entente. The starting point is the US realising that its punishing of Putin (however bad his behaviour) is “pushing Russia into an unnatural alliance with China”.

Three thought-provoking articles:

.@markhleonard of @ecfr argued that Europe’s populists can “win by losing” the upcoming European Parliament elections in May. “With plans to form a populist united front, Eurosceptic parties need only capture one-third of parliamentary seats to bring EU governance to a crawl.”

.@dandrezner argued that there’s rare consensus among foreign policy commentators and practitioners of vastly different schools of thought: China threatens US interests. What’s interesting is, despite the rare elite consensus, polls show the US public isn’t on board.

.@AnandWrites argued that what was so great about Davos this year is that the billionaires’ “impact investing” mask slipped. Davos' critics are starting to get traction with the idea that the only way that structural inequality can be addressed is by taxing the very wealthy.

Three events to watch in the near future:

State of the (dis)Union: Foreign policy types will tune in to see what Trump has to say on: trade talks with China; tumult in Venezuela; the upcoming North Korea summit; the INF Treaty; Iran; NATO; US troop withdrawals from Syria & Afghanistan; and possibly more.

.@JamesMLindsay ’s advice for analysing Trump’s address is: (i) Ask is there anything new here? – any new initiatives on issues like immigration or infrastructure? (ii) Look for tenor & tone – does he strike dark notes, or try to build bridges? (iii) What doesn’t he talk about?

Laying the groundwork for Trump-Kim 2.0: The US’ NK envoy, Stephen Biegun is in Seoul, for talks with NK. This comes after a speech where he (i) claimed Trump was willing to formally end the Korean War (ii) asserted that Kim has pledged to destroy all NK’s enrichment facilities.

.@NarangVipin said he’s “hopeful but sceptical” on North Korea’s alleged pledge. “The North Koreans have not publicly said this themselves so I think it’s important to be very careful… I’m wary of Biegun (or anyone) making claims of North Korean pledges on its behalf.”

Maduro’s grip weakens: cracks have appeared in Maduro’s (critical) military support, with a general publicly declaring support for Guaido. Further, last week saw widespread street protests in Venezuela, including in small towns normally well removed from national politics.

.@CaracasChron argued that the most significant aspect of the protests was that the security forces – uncharacteristically – did not rough up the protesters. This is likely because Maduro was unsure that if he gave the order, his security forces would have followed.

With Maduro having in a sense lost control of his security forces, @CaracasChron argued “what comes next is clear. How fast it will play out isn’t. How peaceful or violent it will be isn’t. But we know how this plays out. And thank God for that.”

Thanks as always to everyone who has been liking, retweeting, and spreading the word. We are continually humbled by the following we are gathering amongst the world’s leading diplomats, journalists, and thinkers.

Have a great week!

The Ambassador’s Brief Editors