Putin's angry response today about US INF testing shouldn't be a surprise. He has every expectation that Trump will get the rest of the US defense establishment in line, and doesn't understand (apparently) that the military-industrial complex was more than happy to ditch INF. /1
That was a shot directly at Trump in an attempt to intimidate him. It'll work, but it won't matter much, since the nuclear fanboys have what they want: a license to spend on new nukes. This was not in Putin's game plan. He was counting on Obama's passivity or Trump's fear. /2
This should be a reminder, as @LawDavF and I have said many times, that Putin really isn't that good a strategist. He's been lucky in short-term gambles, and blessed with cooperative opponents, but long-term he's leading Russia into a dead-end that could lead to war. /3
@LawDavF What's really interesting here is that INF testing shows the USG (and I DO NOT REPRESENT THE USG, KTHANX) and the President really have separate policies. The President has no idea what the INF treaty did, and didn't care. Putin was violating it, something about China, etc. /4
But beyond that, the USG is kind of on a post-2014 course, except for the nuclear guys, who have picked up the ball - a football, one might say - and are running with it. Trump, for all his "I hereby order" stuff, isn't really running very much when it comes to policy. /5
And so now, for no good reason at all other than that Russia is run by a mobster and America is run by an ignoramus, two major powers are headed for an incredibly risky nuclear arms race right out of 1982. I saw this movie and I didn't like it the first time, either. /6x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You know better than this, @cdrsalamander, and I know that from talking to you. Your comments are in bad faith. But for others who are curious, I'll explain.
NWC's curriculum revision 50 years ago was to prevent another civil-military failure on the level of Vietnam. /1
VADM Turner was explicit about this, and it's been a guiding principle ever since to make sure that NWC graduates are intelligent strategic contributors in the room, instead of pure operators who have no idea how to advise or confer with civilians. /2
Sal is focused on about 30 minutes of a 90 minute seminar out of some 20 meetings. But as I told my students: You need to recognize what drives the arguments of the civilians in the room. If you don't, you'll be the guy sent out for coffee while the grownups talk. /3
The Israelis are calling this a "preemptive" strike. Whether you agree or disagree with this attack, these are not - from what we know tonight - "preemptive" strikes. The Israelis are using that word for a reason. Read on. /1
In tradition and international law, a "preemptive" attack is a spoiling attack, meant to strike an enemy who is *imminently* going to strike you. This is what Israel did in 1967, getting the jump on Arab armies that were about to attack. That's usually permissable. /2
What's going on right now are *preventive* strikes, which are usually NOT permissable in law or tradition. This is striking an enemy far in advance, because you believe time and situation is favorable to you. That, for example, is Japan striking the US in 1941. /3
I might have more to say later, but all the reviews of Carter's presidency emphasize his character, his success in the Mideast, and inflation/gas prices.
But left out of all that: His Cold War policies were abject failures and left America in a precarious situation by 1980. /1
Not only did the Soviets run wild during Carter's presidency, they hated him personally, seeing him as an unserious man giving them Sunday School lectures. Some of America's allies felt the same way, esp after Carter hosed the Germans on the neutron bomb issue. /2
When Carter finally became a born-again Cold Warrior in late 1978, he amped up multiple nuclear programs (which people mistakenly associate with Reagan) and in 1980 issued PD-59, a pretty extreme nuclear warfighting doctrine that convinced Moscow that he was completely nuts. /3
So, a few words about this new Russian nuclear doctrine, but here's the short version: It's not a doctrine, it's a ploy.
/1
The old Soviet Union had a formal military doctrine, and it mattered. (Trust me. Wrote my doctoral dissertation and first book on it.) It mattered because the regime believed in ideology, and in conforming its policies to ideology and communicating that to its institutions. /2
Soviet military doctrine was a means of intra-elite communication and policy guidance. Yes, some of it was just bullshit, but it was a real thing that was meant to make the various parts of the USSR defense world (strategy, industry, etc) fly in formation. /3
Okay, I admit, I've been kind of rope-a-doping some of the people angry over my "it's okay to drop friends over politics posts." So I'll wrap up:
I don't recall anyone on my right getting mad when I wrote this in a right-wing - now insanely right wing - magazine in 2016. /1
The reason I got very little pushback, I suspect, is that no one expected Trump to win. But now, people on the right are stuck having to defend what they've done and itchy about it.
But interestingly, the same magazine also now has this:
/2
If you're angry over dropping friends and family over Trump now, but weren't in 2016, or aren't over calls now to de-recognize other citizens as Americans (and I assume that means friends who voted for Harris)...well...
/3