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
I'm gonna say that I am surprised (and gladly so) by how fast the Democrats coalesced around Harris. First time in a while I've really gotten the sense that they know what the stakes are that maybe disbanding the circular firing squad is a good idea. VP was the obvious choice. /1
Many of you asked me WELL WHO DO YOU WANT, TOM in that "we dare you to name a name" way. I didn't say Harris or anyone else. All of them had risks, and I didn't want a pile-on, especially on a candidate who becomes "the one you Never Trumpers" want, and esp before Biden quit. /2
But duh, if the President decides not to run the VP is the obvious choice unless someone in the party can make the strong case that she isn't. No one has. Instead, the Dems seem to be rallying around a pick as good as any they have. QED /3
Before I head downstairs for some late-night TV, I am going to do something I’ve never done:
To see if I can get through to some of you, I AM GOING TO USE A SPORTSBALL ANALOGY!
/1
Bottom of the 9th, Team Democracy tied with Team Autocrat. Biden’s been pitching a great game, but he’s getting tired. Facing their top hitter, he goes for his fastball.
He unloads a wild pitch into the stands, hitting a fan in the head. Crowd hushes. Opposing team grins.
/2
The Coach – concerned Dems – comes out to the mound.
"You okay?"
"Fine. Insulted you’d ask. Watch this next pitch."
Biden puts one in the dirt.
The Coach watches the catcher scrambling and then at the guy in the stands rubbing his sore noggin.
I agree that there is a double-standard in covering Trump. I have complained about it a lot. (The way I complain about everything: At length.) But maybe many of you should consider what you were saying about Trump coverage back at the start.
"Stop covering him!"
/1
I was one of the people arguing for saturating the airwaves with him so people could see his emotional instability. "Shut up," many of you yelled. "You're giving him oxygen!" When he was POTUS, I opposed kicking him off Twitter, which made some of you go nuts.
/2
And this isn't because it was good coverage; you wanted him cast into silence, which I opposed. This got so intense that I wrote this piece in USA Today to pushback on the calls to stop tweeting his press conferences:
This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1
During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2
Once ICBMs enter the picture after 1959-ish, however, we have a new problem: What if the enemy's massive first strike destroys the ICBMs and the sub pens, leaving the last few subs able only to destroy cities and trigger Armageddon?
Bombers wait for the order, is what. /3
I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1
Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2
And yeah, we should have maybe paid more attention to the problem of progressives who wouldn't let go:
/3
Franck is making the case for a solipsistic, self-regarding approach to voting, that is all about you and not about collective action. Sometimes in politics just as in foreign policy, you understand that you end up in alliances you don’t like for the sake of a greater purpose. /1
Franck reminds me of the political scientists years ago who scratched their heads about why people bothered to vote when no single vote can affect very much. But voting even when you don’t like any of the choices is part of civic maturity. /2
It is remarkably self-absorbed to think that your vote is a character-afflicting endorsement rather than a strategic choice. Voting when you like the choices is easy. Making a strategic decision when you don’t like the choices requires thought. /3