Thread by @sfrantzman

There has been some focus on the position that India and UAE took on Ukraine, basically arguing that they are partners of the West and shouldn't have prevaricated at the UNSC

https://twitter.com/humeyra_pamuk/status/1497342502633971718

For instance Haass argues that India isn't dependable because of its abstaining;

https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/1497188337483980801

But there are two issues to point out here. First is, what is Qatar doing? Qatar will be voting in the General Assembly right? Qatar was recently named a major non-NATO ally of the US; so is there focus on its position?

https://twitter.com/SecBlinken/status/1497414882882424838?s=20&t=X4eZBq4daSMuCkkn_2M6mg

Second I think it's a bit strange to critique India or others about being "dependable" when we openly know that when it comes to being attacked by a country today, like Russia attacked Ukraine, the US and NATO allies will only protect eachother, not countries like India

So when it comes to telling these countries to be "dependable"...what does that mean? Is the US and others dependable in stopping the Russian invasion? I think the issue of being dependable needs to go both ways.

The US often wants countries like the UAE, for instance, to not work with China. But the US doesn't seem to put forward an alliance or partnership that is iron-clad and makes it clear that the US is there for countries it wants on its side.

What that means is that when countries see an invasion like happened to Ukraine they understand the world has no rules today and that western allies basically will only be there for eachother, such as NATO members. Non-members are out in the cold, even if they are pro-West.

This doesn't make non-condemnation of Russia right, it doesn't make it moral, but it is one of the issues affecting the West in terms of trying to get countries to sign on. Because a lot of countries know that they could be the next Ukraine. Who will be there to stop invasions?

They know that they are mostly on their own internationally. So the theory that if they hedge they are not dependable needs to be squared with the question of whether their being excluded from iron-clad alliances like NATO mean they think the West is not dependable.

Every country is watching what happens in Ukraine and is acting accordingly. They are watching how a peaceful country can be attacked in an unprovoked manner; how parts of that country can be annexed; its capital pledged into fighting.

They wonder what comes next. They've seen the impunity that Iran has, for instance, to attack Saudi Arabia, to use Houthis to attack the UAE, to use Iraqi militias to target countries around the region. They know that they are largely on their own.

A lot of people are talking about this being a new world order, like the US set down in 1991, except now going back to a world of chaos and regional powers. That is why Pakistan's leader was in Russia this week and others. Because they see the tectonic shifts.

Many countries understand that NATO is an iron-clad club. If you're in, you're protected. If not, then too bad. Turkey's invasion and ethnic cleansing of Afrin was an example of that. If you're being attacked by a NATO member, no one cares. And again, people draw conclusions.

The rise of the authoritarians such as China-Russia-Iran-Turkey and others is making a lot of other countries make tough choices. Each of those authoritarian regimes has countries they threaten, such as Iran threatens Israel and the Gulf, China-India tensions.

A lot of these countries would like to have an iron-clad NATO-like alliance probably, but they understand that this didn't happen and they have to grasp in the world of chaos and darkness for the friendships they can find, or compromise.

It's easy to sit in the West and tell some countries that they aren't "dependable" and also tell those countries "well of course we would never defend you, you're not a NATO member"...those countries will draw their own conclusions.

Countries will be the kind of dependable partners that they feel is being offered to them. If the partnership is much less than NATO, then when it comes to not angering a Russia that just invaded Ukraine...they will weigh their choices.