W all due respect to estimatable @BonnieGlaser I don't get her counterargument. She argues that we shldn't clarify we would defend Taiwan b/c "China could respond by mounting an attack." That's certainly a real risk & one we shld consider (tactically) even in move to clarity. 1/
That implies we shld be careful b/c real risk of PRC attack. But then later: “there is little evidence that China is poised to invade Taiwan.” “Poised” is ambiguous. Capabilities clearly growing. Intent disputable, but intent can change on dime. So we shld plan they might try. 2/
Key is: If there’s real risk of China invading Taiwan, clarity removes Beijing’s doubt of US response. If there’s NOT a risk, then clarity might tick off Beijing, but a) won’t really affect Taiwan & b) what’ll they do, suppress Hong Kong? 3/
Taiwan independence issue is red herring. US has multiple levers to pressure Taiwan w/out allowing it to be taken over by China. Sanctions, etc. 4/
US has interest in Taiwan not declaring independence AND China not taking over Taiwan, no matter what Taiwan does. Reasons include key ones @BonnieGlaser point out: the island is located in the middle of the first island chain, ergo critical to defense of Japan et al. 5/
Then @BonnieGlaser seems to call for more deterrence & clarity, but blinks from implications. Worth quoting at length: “US does need to shore up its ability to deter Chinese re Taiwan…US should revise its publicly declared policy in a manner that strengthens deterrence, but" 6/
"not by issuing a statement of “strategic clarity…US policymakers could issue a warning that any Chinese use of force against Taiwan would be viewed as a threat to peace and stability and a grave threat to US. Such statement would signal US resolve w/out the downsides of..." 7/
a clear security guarantee.” Well, but how is that different from a security guarantee? That sounds like strategic clarity to me! Maybe @BonnieGlaser is pointing to key reality: US is ALREADY basically committed under TRA. So clarity would be going ~75% to 100%. So why not? 8/
Then she says: “If Beijing looks set to move against Taiwan, US could forestall a crisis by privately issuing clear warnings to China’s leader about consequences of such an action.” But would that be credible? And isn’t better to head off well before that to AVOID crisis? 9/
Closes: “Ambiguity has preserved cross-strait stability for decades and can continue to prevent war.” Maybe, but biggest error is preserving carcass of dead policies when no longer suit. Ambiguity was fine when PRC cldnt do anything. Now they can. Need to avoid Korea 1950. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@realDonaldTrump common sense policy is getting results:
"European Nato members are holding talks about increasing the alliance’s target for defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP at its annual summit next June partly in anticipation of Donald Trump’s return as president." 1/
Here's this *insane* idea: Europe should spend at least as much to defend itself as Americans do! Crazy, right? No: Common sense!
Europeans know they need to do this. They just need to be pressed, as @realDonaldTrump has done, not let off the hook, as @POTUS has. 2/
@realDonaldTrump @POTUS "Trump’s demand that Europe should pay more for its own defence, and a realisation that current spending levels are not enough to support Ukraine and to deter Russia, has forced capitals to take on board the scale of the under-investment." 3/
Now that voters have clearly discredited Liz Cheney and the associated brand of extreme hawkishness, Democrats might consider working with the new Republican Party that is *actually much more moderate and sensible* on foreign and security issues.
Observe: 1/
The new GOP led by @realDonaldTrump is focused on:
- Ending wars and avoiding new ones.
- Reducing the threat of nuclear war.
- Ensuring the military spends its money wisely and efficiently.
- Ensuring accountability in the intelligence community and the security services. 2/
@realDonaldTrump Ask a random Democrat from 1965, 1975, or 1985 if these were Democrats issues and you can be absolutely sure they’d claim they were.
What does this mean?
Latent beneath the superficial disagreements, there’s huge potential for bipartisan action on *common sense* policies. 3/
This is the shockingly bad military situation @POTUS is leaving @realDonaldTrump. Profoundly irresponsible and dangerous.
America's defenses are deep in a hole and it won't be easy to get out of it. @realDonaldTrump has laid out the way.
"“God forbid we end up in a full-scale war with the PRC,” Jake Sullivan said. “But any war with a country like the PRC, a military like the PRC, is going to involve the exhaustion of munition stockpiles very rapidly.” 2/
Why didn't they do this instead of blowing through our stockpiles and barely touching our defense industrial base, instead focusing on green initiatives?
Sullivan warned that the U.S. needs to be “stockpiling both the vital munitions we know we’ll need..." 3/
"Europe, however, squandered the time it should have spent investing more heavily into the relationship—including by building up its own defenses...European leaders cannot simply shift the blame for their predicament to Washington." 1/
"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been the final wake-up call, creating real momentum behind Europe’s effort to become a credible security actor in its own right. Instead, once again, it relied on the United States to take the lead in a European war." 2/
"European leaders must act decisively to...demonstrate to the US that Europe is prepared to hold up its side of a mutually beneficial partnership. Europe’s security will have to be European—or it won’t exist at all." 3/
I wasn't referring so much to your influence on the @POTUS administration as to your track record in assessing the war. I happily invite comparisons to my own.
It's essential to understand that @POTUS @VP administration is leaving a *terrible situation* for @realDonaldTrump @JDVance.
Senior NSC official: "They’re in a very difficult, extremely difficult situation with Russia, in egregious ways, continuing to escalate this conflict." 1/
"Unfortunately, that is part and parcel of what we have seen throughout this time, which is Russia’s willingness to continue to up the ante."
So the battlefield situation is "extremely difficult" and Russia is willing to escalate. Terrible. 2/
The U.S. intelligence assessment according to @nytimes:
U.S. "officials have concluded that the war in Ukraine is no longer a stalemate as Russia makes steady gains, and the sense of pessimism in Kyiv and Washington is deepening." 3/