Thread by @shaunjlawson

In April 2016, two months before Brexit, 7 months before Trump won, and weeks after Crimea's annexation, The Atlantic published a huge profile of and interview with Barack Obama: focusing on his foreign policy.

It is quite massively informative.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…

Re-reading it now, one little section really jumped out at me.

"Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there".

“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do".

(Me again): You can sum up Obama's approach to foreign policy in four words.

"Don't do stupid stuff".

Specifically: avoid needless foreign entanglements with no escape route, no exit strategy.

Iraq taught him that. The American people will not tolerate anything like that ever happening again.

On Syria, inaction was probably *better* than action. But the choice was awful.

But what we're also seeing now is that inaction, even when based on horrible recent experiences and the limitations of democracy (because if you act, you might well get voted out), often doesn't work either.

That's the reality of international relations. A series of awful choices, none of which may work.

And yet what's crucial now is the backdrop in the West has been changed, totally, by what Putin has done.

Now, Western publics traumatised by Iraq and Afghanistan recognise how important action is.

We've already seen what unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan has done. Even Daesh only truly rose in Iraq *after* US troops had gone. Obama was elected in order to pull them out.

That is to say: democratic leaders can only act within the confines and context of their time. They can't magically see far into the future.

That even includes appeasement in the 1930s. We weren't remotely ready for another war, which Chamberlain knew.

We still weren't ready when it broke out. Hence the phoney war which (by and large) followed: in our case, at least. As Poland was carved up completely.

But this war now? It's about the preservation and amplification of liberal, democratic values. Which Putin most despises.

It is quite appalling, and the most horrendous indictment of the failure, corruption, decadence and decay of the last 40 years in the West, that it's taken something like this to make us realise our precious those values are.

But it certainly gives Western leaders more leeway.

It certainly emphasises how critical NATO is and how Europe must stand up to the plate in funding it in the same way as the US always has.

It certainly emphasises the importance of collective European defence in a way we've all ignored for so long.

Obama was dealing with a very different backdrop. Hence his decisions.

Roosevelt was dealing with a completely isolationist Congress. Hence his.

Western leaders can only work with what they have, not what they don't. But what we have is a lot more now than merely 2 weeks ago.