This fine report falls victim to one of the most common problems of reports from DC think tanks. Let me start by saying, the recommendations are clear, reasonable, and understandable. Where it fails, like many similar reports, is its lack of realism 1/n cnas.org/publications/r…
Just to take one example from the report, point #2 says "Aim for Coordinated, if Not Common, Policies" with Europe with regards to China. This is a perfectly reasonable and valid position if we are not focused on the reality we must grapple with. So in a way 2/n
I am not critiquing the position at all on the other hand I am saying it is entirely unrealistic. It is only maybe since the beginning of 2020 that Europe has started to take China seriously despite Trump administration efforts across a range of policy domains. Additionally 3/n
For many reasons due exclusively to intra-EU and then intra-country specifics, many countries have very different interests in everything from challenging China to coordinating with the US. The reality is that this is something that needs to be worked out much more 4/n
Internally within Europe (at the regional and country level) for anything to happen. It is just willful blindness to think there has not been enormous work by the US to try and build these partnerships and even now European countries are a mish mash of interests with strange 5/n
Partners of countries cooperating. France wants to build a bigger military. Sweden is hawkish on China for their own reasons while Germany is dovish but maybe changing. This is effectively a Europe issue. They're the roadblock to working on joint responses to China not the US 6/n
These are solid recommendations. However, the primary obstacle is Europe not the US. Until they figure out what they want to do, the US should not wait and should not water down its approach. Once they take off the beret and stop smoking on the 3 month vacation, we can coordinate
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
