Sitting in an airport let me give you a list of principles I'm willing to bring any discusion around China and Russia upon: 1. The United States is not at fault for the autocratic mobster rule it has suffered through almost uninterrupted since 1989. As loathsome his work 1/n
For Huawei, neither Jeff Sachs, Larry Summers, are any more responsible for Russia than I am.
2. NATO had no bearing on Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. That is nothing more than smoke screen obfuscation and we all know it
3. Negotiate from a position of strength
2/n
4. Putin is mad and threatening nuclear Holocaust only because we don't just give him what he wants.
5. Shared values and standing up for democracy is the biggest bullshit ever thrown about by politicos and IR profs. Never have such great values meant so little in practice 3/n
6. Everything we are doing now is a dry run for China. Whatever your issues on sanctions, energy, and Ukraine, get them sorted out now for blockades, supply chains, and Taiwan.
7. Putin is rational in that he is very calculating, irrational in that he is willing to kill 4/n
A HELL OF A LOT MORE people than you to achieve his aim.
8. You may be through with the Cold War and Ming Dynasty are done with you but we're not even close to doing
9. There are a lot of hard decisions going to be made based upon very imperfect information. Nothing will neatly fit into your damned IR head school theory or Fox/MSNBC talking point. There are no easy answers
10. Despite what bubble headed professors now driving China /n
Policy want to believe, China and Russia are expansionist. They are corning a block of threatening autocracies. Reality is your going to have to face it and stand up to it. Not with a hash tag but with measures that cause actual pain broadly defined.
Sorry, those are the rules
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ICYMI, here is my latest paper with my new think tank New Kite Data Labs. In this paper, we cover the case of a Chinese military civil fusion firm who has exfiltrating data from high value networks like US military and European universities. Are major findings are: 1/n
1. Chinese enterprise, likely acting on behalf of a major state owned enterprise designated by the US government as tied to the People’s Liberation Army, is engaged in data collection from sensitive high value information networks of the US military and other non-US targets 2/n
2. The data and the associated source code provides evidence of methodical exfiltration from a variety of high value networks ranging from known but top-secret US military projects to non-US university and government linked targets. 3/n
So in professional news I am happy to announce that @that_data_chap and I have started the the think tank newkitedata.com. Our first report is on Chinese military civil fusion about the case of a private Chinese company using AI processing to manage data 1/n
Exfiltration from top secret US military projects, companies, and non-US institutions including government linked entities and universities. We are also proud to announce the China Data Project where will be releasing a series of reports in the coming weeks and months 2/n
About China and other data collection activities by authoritarian states. We will be working with other trusted researchers and institutions prioritizing researchers from Taiwan, Hong Kong, East Turkestan, and Tibet who feel the weight of authoritarian policies 3/n
So let's take a deep breath and recap some of where we are and some of the different points I have been hitting. 1. I think you still have to call the Russians the proverbial favorites as they have a lot more they can easily do in Ukraine. Don't mistake me here 1/n
I want the Ukranians to win but Russia has a lot of cards left to play in Ukraine and a much higher appetite to absorb and inflict savage losses. That said: this is going to be a real fight all around. True prayers be upon Ukraine that they survive this fight. 2/n
2. So far the Biden administration gets very mixed grade. They have made some real mistakes and been very slow to react. For instance, Biden being public with intel and sharing intel with Beijing is a high risk move. Given that Biden did nothing to backstop Ukraine 3/n
I see this idea being bandied about that roughly goes if sanctions don't prevent Putin from going into Ukraine then what's the point? This is attempting to draw a staight line from X sanction to Y action. There are multiple problems with the line of thinking. Let's unpack 1/n
1. Sanctions can be used simply to make something more difficult or cut of customers. As a simple example, why should the United States consumer being funding Russian petro-state when it can produce that same gas domestically. Yes, Russia can sell that gas elsewhere 2/
But why should the US be funding in this case Russia when they are so stridently anti US and or attacking? 2. Can be used to stimulate shifts away from one producer to another. China has opened up its markets to Russia but sanctions can stimulate growth from other producers 3/n
Look at almost any event and if you play back the decisions or little events that led up to that, what we see as the "BIG EVENT" ultimately became almost inevitable by all the previous events or decisions that took place to cause the "BIG EVENT". Let's revisit why we are here 1/n
1. Disconnect between word and deeds. The reality is there is a vast difference between the two and enemies looking for any weakness to exploit know that the major democratic powers are little more than hashtag powers 2/n
2. Engagement needs to be shot between the eyes. Russia, China, Iran and others know engagement is a one way bet. Let people make some money because they will never do anything because they fear the consequences. What have universities really accomplished in Russia/China?
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