Thread by @BaldingsWorld

Take a brief trip with me about about how we frame foreign policy leading up to major events. As I tell my kids, you should never arrive in a test or a game and think OMG what do I do? You've practiced. You've studied. You're ready. The process and work has prepared you. 1/n

So how do we apply that thinking to foreign policy? A. Is foreign policy consistent in direction, statement, and execution? Put another way: do words match actions and do so consistently? Let's start with Trump: the PR on Trump foreign policy was relatively inconsistent 2/n

BUT actions and directionality were very consistent. On Iran, China, and Russia, he took a pretty hawkish line and did so very consistently over the course of his administration. Let's turn to Biden who saw many flaws with the Trump approach and has done almost exact opposite 3/n

Biden foreign policy PR says all the right things and are so consistent and identical I'm almost convinced they have an algorithm write their press releases. However, they have taken a decided turn towards appeasement which has emboldened many but also been inconsistent 4/n

Take NS2. They started by rolling back NS2 sanctions and opposition, even though that was long term policy not just of Trump. Then said it could change if Russia changed. Now we are probably on our 3rd-4th NS2 policy in less than 15 months. That is inconsistent. Then take 5/n

Germany made series of bad decisions about its energy security because they wanted to deal with Russia while cashing American security checks. Pre-Biden the US, increasingly under Trump, at least pressured Germany and sought to increase costs linked to these policy decisions 6/n

Germany took these decisions because there was NO cost associated with making bad decisions knowing the US bore the costs. You may really PISS Germany off drawing a line in the sand but as the security central banker, you bear the costs not Berlin to their decisions 7/n

Even though Biden admin saying all the right things they are directionally WRONG and inconsistent at the same time. Why am I stressing consistency? Credibility matters. If you have not in word and deed made this clear repeatedly over time, when it matters no one will believe 8/n

You are serious. Russia said as much in the speech yesterday noting "they will come crawling back.". What is the second major point? 2. You ABSOLUTELY MUST MUST MUST MUST attach costs to behavior. Let's start with Trump. I think there are very fair debates about tariffs 9/n

On China. However, it linked a very clear cost to doing business in that manner. No, its not economically efficient. Yes, its bad in lots of ways. People and firms are NOT going to change behavior without a financial signal or incentive. You can NOT change doing business 10/n

With China by unicorns and cotton candy. You cannot get companies to shift production to Vietnam or India by letting China continue to subsidize its bad behavior. Same thing with Russia and Germany. We can say Trump was not polished or didn't deliver message nicely enough 11/n

But he absolutely sought to attach costs to business activities like making Germany more dependent on Russia. Biden is seeking to change key actors behavior with best friends journals and hashtags. It will not work. Even the "sanctions" he is imposing so far are basically 12/n

Nothing burgers. If you do not place a cost on those activities people, firms, and countries are going to continue to engage in those activities. To recap: we just the creation of foreign policy on two broad metrics: 13/n

A. Are public statements and actions consistent? B. Are costs being imposed or borne at a level to help facilitate a shift away from bad behavior or policy? If there are no actions and no costs are imposed, there is nothing to discuss.