Michael McFaul Profile picture
Jan 25 5 tweets 1 min read
On the U.S. preemptive war in 2003 vs Putin's planning for preemptive war 2022, I don't see logically or morally how you could be against the former but acquiescent to the latter. I'd have thought there'd be more outrage at the UN or campuses about this new impending war.1/
The decision to invade Iraq when we did was a mistake. In the fall of 2001, I had a different view. By the spring of 2002, I changed my view. By me aside, even if you were against the war from the beginning, there is no moral equivalency between Iraq then & Ukraine now. 2/
Ukraine has not invaded or tried to annex a neighbor. Or used chemical weapons. Or violated countless UNSC resolutions. Or repressed or terrorized Ukrainian citizens. Or done anything threatening to Russian security. Rather than seeking WMDs, Ukraine gave up nukes. 2/
The U.S. also did not annex Iraqi territory. So when making the 2003 and 2022 comparison, some elements of the analogy are similar, but many other parts are quite different. 3/
And for those always looking to keep me honest, you can see here what I wrote in real time about Iraq. michaelmcfaul.com 4/ END THREAD.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael McFaul

Michael McFaul Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McFaul

Jan 24
You can argue that Bush's preemptive war in 2003 and Putin's preemptive planned war in 2022 were/are both immoral. 1/ THREAD
You can argue that 2003 and 2022 were/are strategically imprudent and geopolitical blunders. 2/
You also can explain both 2003 and 2022 as the "world as it is" -- great powers doing what they do. We may not like it, but that's the nasty Hobbesian world we live in. Classic realism. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Jan 24
The word "implying" is doing a lot of work in your tweet. Why don't you just read what I've written?

"In return, Zelensky should stop asking — for now — to sign a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)." 1/
"MAPs do not provide security guarantees, and the hard reality is that Ukraine today is not qualified to join NATO. Zelensky should focus instead on implementing necessary domestic reforms to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership without formally signing a MAP." 2/
The whole essay is here: 3/

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Read 4 tweets
Jan 23
Since 1945 until today, U.S. soldiers have been stationed in Germany to deter a Soviet threat and now a Russian threat. I don't recall German leaders describing these deployments as "too provocative" to Moscow. But I'm not an expert on German history. I'm probably wrong. 1/
Imagine, if during the Berlin blockade in 1948, Truman had said, 'better not send any planes; Moscow might think it too provocative?' (Remember, in 1948, West Germany was not a formal ally.) 2/
The Berlin blockade analogy is an instructive one. Think of the counterfactual. Had we not responded and let the Soviets take the city, would Moscow have then stopped threatening West Germany or other parts of Europe? Of course not. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Jan 15
"But what if Putin really wants to talk about European security? If so, U.S., Canadian and European leaders should embrace the opportunity." 1/ THREAD
Some of the great pillars of European security of the past — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, the Vienna Document, the Paris Charter, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine and 2/
"the Helsinki Final Act — are either now defunct or no longer serving their originally intended purposes.
Many of the demands in the draft treaties now floated by Putin, however are nonstarters and violate agreements Moscow signed before." 3/
Read 5 tweets
Jan 12
My colleagues were not short of words to describe this summit today & this is probably no bad thing. I too used the term ‘historic’ to describe it, referring to the long way we have come...& entering the period of productive construction that the start of this decade ushered in."
"Now we are starting to build up our cooperation, and so I would agree overall that this is indeed an important stage in building a full and productive partnership between Russia and NATO." 2/
"Incidentally, even the declaration approved at the end of our talks states that we seek to develop a strategic partnership. This is not a chance choice of words, but signals that we have succeeded in putting the difficult period in our relations behind us now." 3/
Read 5 tweets
Jan 10
The abstract theoretical discussion among academics on the merits of a guarantee to not expand NATO or not is completely divorced from American domestic politics. Biden would be absolutely pummelled by his domestic critics if he even hinted at such a concession. THREAD 1/
The Republican talking points on Biden foreign policy are already crystal clear -- "Biden is weak." That's the phrase, which will be repeated for 3 years. Weak on China. Weak on Afghanistan. & if Putin invades OR Biden gives concessions, "Weak on Russia." 2/
Reminds me of talk about missile defense limits in the New START Treaty. Some had theoretical discussions about the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic systems. But politically, everyone knew that any constraint on MD was a poison pill for the treaty. 3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(