Read on Twitter
🧵I grow weary of the “China first ”school in US policy community, which argues that since our military isn’t big enough to cover both #Europe & #Asia, we need to stop aiding #Ukraine, leave EUR to its own devices & husband our resources to focus on the pacing threat in Asia.1/6
I’m sorry but this makes no sense. The “China first” school is retreading the tired “pivot” rhetoric from the last decade. You don’t try to solve the problem by running away from it. If our military is too small to secure our strategic interests, we need to build it up. 2/6
The Atlantic and the Pacific are not and either/or proposition; they are together/with. They are one problem set. China and Russia understand it—they have sought to create a simultaneous two-frontier crisis for us: one in Eastern Europe, the other in the Indo-Pacific. 3/6
The reason the US military is structured today for only one major theater is not a resource issue. It is a result of political decisions that over three decade reformatted our military for GWOT. But the era of counterterrorism/out-of-are being our top priority is over. 4/6
We are back to state-on-state competition, and there are no shortcuts here-no “pivots” that can allow us to win on the cheap. Preserving the int’l system that favors us will be costly, but running away from one theater to focus on another is a prescription for failure in both.5/6
The US needs to rebuild its military both in terms of its size and weapons/munitions stocks. If Europe wants @NATO to remain viable it must do the same. When it comes to hard power there are no shortcuts. It’s time for Western to speak plainly on this. It’s time to rearm. 6/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
