Thread by @SokovNikolai

@russianforces @pranayrvaddi @Woolaf @baklitskiy @nukestrat Takes more than one tweet to respond, sorry for thread.
1/ If you want the other side to take your concerns seriously, you need to take its concerns seriously as well. If not, then you got conflict. ...

2/ I'm sad that so many polisci grads know prisoner's dilemma, but do not know the shadow of the future - just are not taught it. In my experience, a widespread drawback of US diplomacy - not everyone, but too many - is the "lawyers' malaise:" you win your case and ...

3/ go to celebrate, the next case starts from scratch. Not in IR: HOW you win the case affects subsequent cases. Take START II: one of reasons Duma refused to ratify in '96 was asymmetry in uploading capability (made it too expensive). How it emerged is interesting: ...

4/ ... at one of mtgs with Kozyrev, Baker stated almost literally: we're a democracy and transparent, so you can trust we will not secretly upload; you are not (yet), so we cannot be sure you will not. Kozyrev bought that, but few in Moscow will these days. ...

5/ I'll never stop repeating: in diplomacy style matters as much as substance. It does not matter what you think about Rus concerns, they have to be addressed seriously and Rus requests for more data on US concerns should be taken seriously as well ...

6/ What we got now? Given the STYLE of INF end (only US concerns matter, Rus ones do not), I find it uncomfortably likely that Moscow will stubbornly insist on its concerns over New START and will not hesitate to end that treaty over these concerns.

7/ Going back to MK-41 Rus concerns, I find claim about different software pretty weird. My instant Q is: will I be able to use NTMs to detect replacement of software? I can buy substance, but you can't wave this off and expect serious attention to US concerns.