A terrific thread, but I'm troubled by one issue that's going to get more intense: whether Biden should rule out or leave ambiguous whether US would under any circumstances fight *in* Ukraine. 1/
2/First, agree Biden administration should be less frequent in announcements about what it won't do. Because that communicates a general reluctance to be involved or suffer retaliations at all. The emphasis should be on action taken, keeping Putin in the public spotlight.
3/Beyond that, should they engage in an elaborate bluff, when their position is not to engage directly with NFZ's, etc? Leaving open possibility of direct intervention, & therefore dramatically raising risks of major war, while conspicuously refraining, isn't much more credible.
4/Russia will still believe, rightly, that in Ukraine, it has v US an imbalance of interests & therefore resolve in its favour. Were the US to "up" brinksmanship w/threats, signals, etc, assumption that Russia would sense US resolve & back off may be mistaken. Maybe the reverse.
5/While rhetorically leaving open the possibility of intervention would ramp up domestic demand, certainly in political & security circles, for further intervention, and heighten the charge of weakness when Biden doesn't follow through.
6/There's no clear, easy solution here. One way of threading the needle and "crisis bargaining" with more plausible ambiguity might be credibly to threaten Russian targets outside Ukraine & Russia - @dmarusic's list is a good start.
7/It comes down to a disagreement about what creates "resolve" that can have a coercive/deterrent effect. I'm skeptical overall that leaving open prospect of action that is non-credible doesn't do much to make it more credible, esp. where imbalance of stakes in the conflict.
8/Equally, Washington's first duty is to secure its citizens and, beyond that, protects allies, and taking care to avoid action that inadvertently takes Russia to the brink is a fundamental and legitimate part of that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Regarding Afghanistan, US & allies: US irritation is justified.
1/ Allies didn't invoke Article V & enter Afghanistan out of noble altruism. They were pursuing their interests. The US doesn't "owe" them for it. Arguments at the time appealed to the value of ensuring influence.
2/Most allies withdrew most of their forces years ago. Understandably so - but don't then denounce Washington's decision to withdraw after doing more heavy lifting.
3/Regarding "consultation", the US gave reasonable notice in Feb 2020. Could there have been more coordination? Yes. But the US was not obliged to seek permission, and allies had time to arrange their own evacuations.