I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers - from Kissinger to Chomsky - who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).
The first one is George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia".
Then there's Kissinger, in 2014 ⬇️ He warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that it therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO".
This is John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome."
This is Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
This is Clinton's defense secretary William Perry explaining in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning".
This is Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war."
Stephen Cohen, a famed scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential"
Whole video worth watching:
This is famous Russian-American journalist Vladimir Pozner, in 2018, who says that NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russian, that there has to be a compromise where "Ukraine, guaranteed, will not become a member of NATO."
This is famous economist Jeffrey Sachs writing right before war broke out a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia."
This is CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests"
This is Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warning in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem" theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is Paul Keating, 24th prime minister of Australia, writing in 1997 that expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system [in early 20th]"
This is former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation"
This is Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warning one year before the war that " [pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level."
He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it."
This is Pat Buchanan - assistant and special consultant to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan - writing in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation."
This 2008 Wikileaks cable by Bill Burns - now CIA Director - entitled "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES" warns that "Russia [viewed] continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine... as a potential military threat". wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/0…
This is British journalist @Itwitius, former Sky News foreign affairs editor, in his 2015 book Prisoners of Geography: for Russia "a pro-Western Ukraine with ambitions to join [EU or NATO] could not stand" and "could spark a war".
In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion.
This is George Beebe who used to be the CIA's top Russia analyst who in December 2021 linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky"
This is Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, who wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.”
Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance".
This is Frank Blackaby, former director of SIPRI, writing in 1996 that "any Russian Government will react, militarily as well as politically to [NATO’s expansion]" and that it makes "Europe drift [...] towards Cold War II".
This is legendary journalist @johnpilger who wrote this article in 2014.
He describes Ukraine as having become a "CIA theme park", a situation that he foresaw would lead to "a Nato-run guerrilla war" theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is Shiping Tang, one of China's foremost International Relations scholars, writing in 2009 that the "EU must put a stop to [the] U.S./NATO way of approaching European affairs", especially with regards to Ukraine, otherwise it'll "permanently divid[e] Europe".
This is Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych in 2015.
He says that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022".
Even legendary Soviet dissident Solzhenitsyn saw NATO expansion as "an effort to encircle Russia and destroy its sovereignty".
And of course just 3 days ago we now have NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pretty much admitting that war started because of NATO expansion since he revealed Putin proposed not to invade Ukraine if NATO promised no more enlargement, which "of course we didn't sign"... He also said text blank that Russia "went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".
There you go. This might be the war in history that's been the most foreseen by the most experts - from so many countries - for the longest time.
Incredibly, they were almost universally advocating a clear and feasible way to prevent the war: a commitment to no more NATO enlargement and a neutral Ukraine, like Finland (or Austria) was.
Yet we didn't do that. It really, really makes you wonder...
This also probably belongs here, the then Secretary General of NATO showing an understanding in 1990 that a move eastward was threatening to Russia, and saying that therefore NATO "was ready" not to do it...
This 👇 potentially changes everything, it looks like Trump envisions a U.S.-China G2.
He says that "China and the United States can together solve all the problems in the world". x.com/kyleichan/stat…
From the point of view of a citizen of the Earth, I'm all for an improved relationship between the U.S. and China. And so far, despite some of his hawkish appointments, all of the statements by Trump himself point to that. Actions must follow of course, which is anything but a given: U.S. rhetoric often bears little correlation to their actions...
From the point of view of a European though, a US-China G2 would be a strategic disaster of the highest order. In fact it's long been something that many European strategic thinkers have warned about: if a US-China G2 materializes without Europe at the table, it will be on the menu.
A U.S.-China G2 would effectively mark an end to the undeclared world war we've been witnessing these past few years and declare the U.S. and China to be the 2 winners, setting the new rules of the game together the way the winners of WW2 did. Europe had a De Gaulle and a Churchill back then to defend its interests, there's virtually no-one today...
Which is why I've long said it was so strategically dumb for Europe to blindly follow the U.S. in its hostile strategy against China as one day (which looks like it may be coming soon) the U.S. would be bound to flip its position, leaving Europe exposed and with a damaged relationship with China. The smarter approach would have been to maintain an equally balanced relationships with both powers while building up European strategic autonomy. Instead of following Washington's lead on chip restrictions, decoupling initiatives, and confrontational rhetoric, Europe could have carved out its own path...
The question now is whether Europe can still recover its strategic position. And unfortunately the challenge appears nearly insurmountable: years of strategic complacency have left Europe vulnerable at precisely the moment when strength and independence are most crucial, with a complete absence of leaders of the caliber needed to navigate such tricky waters...
Love how this is already being mischaracterized by "China watchers" as Trump playing into Beijing's hands: the "G2 that Xi Jinping has hoped for". x.com/BonnieGlaser/s…
When actually the concept of a G2 originates from the very heart of the U.S. establishment, from people like Fred Bergsten, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Kissinger: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_…
And China has actually historically been very critical of it, even rejecting the very concept. Here's for instance what Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told Barack Obama when the idea was floated during his administration (gov.cn/ldhd/2009-11/1…): "The main reasons we don't agree with the concept of a 'G2' are: First, China is a developing country with a large population, and we remain clear-headed about the long road ahead to build a modernized nation; Second, China pursues an independent and autonomous peaceful foreign policy and does not ally with any country or group of countries; Third, China maintains that world affairs should be decided jointly by all countries, not dictated by one or two countries." (original Chinese: 我们不赞成有关"两国集团"提法的主要原因是:第一,中国是一个人口众多的发展中国家,要建成一个现代化国家还有很长的路要走,对此我们始终保持清醒;第二,中国奉行独立自主的和平外交政策,不与任何国家或国家集团结盟;第三,中国主张世界上的事情应该由各国共同决定,不能由一两个国家说了算)
And again now we have the proposal coming from the U.S., not China, and we can quite safely assume it will likely again face quite a lot of opposition from China.
This is crazy... So let me get this right:
- Yoon lost recent parliamentary elections
- He's invoking national security to justify emergency powers
- He's labeling the opposition as North Korean sympathizers
- He is strongly aligned with US policy (even strengthening ties with Japan, which is deeply unpopular with the population)
This sounds like a bad remake of the classic transitions to right-wing military dictatorship we saw in so many US vassals during the cold war.
Hopefully South Korea will be strong enough to prevent history from repeating itself...
Couldn't be more appallingly undemocratic: martial law can be lifted by a vote in parliament but he's blocking access to it 👇
Goodbye Uniqlo China business (22% of their revenue!) 👋
It's a virtual certainty that Chinese consumers will stop shopping at Uniqlo after this. A *Japanese* company that publicly chooses to align with the West's Uyghur narrative against China (which not a single Chinese believes in, even those most critical of the government): it's the closest you can get to corporate suicide in China.
Puzzling why they'd do that.
The last company that said it'd stop using Xinjiang cotton was H&M. Their sales in China immediately decreased by 41% ()bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
To be clear the choice made by Uniqlo is not about whether to use Xinjiang cotton or not: it's about communicating about it. x.com/GearoidReidy/s…
Maybe they never even used Xinjiang cotton and that's their choice. But given how sensitive an issue this is in China, they'd also chosen for years to not communicate on this issue because it was obvious that if they did it'd instrumentalized by Western media in headlines just like the BBC article...
I don't why they suddenly decided to change position and and start communicating on this, but they did and it did generate headlines. That's the issue...
Absolutely perfect illustration of what we enable with the way the media and the Western political class framed what happened in Amsterdam.
There was a football match between Israel and France yesterday and this 👇 happened at the beginning of the match: a horde of Israeli supporters openly lynched some French supporters in the stands.
Macron himself was in attendance at the match to show his commitment to "fighting antisemitism" after Amsterdam... He made no public comment that I know of on these French supporters getting lynched in front of his eyes. And the police made no reported arrests.
Had the reverse been the case, had this been some Israeli supporters getting lynched by a horde of French supporters, you can absolutely bet 100% that he (and all the French media) would have made a huge deal out of it.
You cannot overstate the absurdism of it: because we've so gaslighted ourselves around "antisemitism" and so distorted the meaning of it, Western countries would literally rather let our their own citizens get lynched on their own soil - in front of the president's eyes (!) - than face accusations being "antisemitic" in their own definition of the term.
French TV interviewed after the match an Israel supporter (wearing an IDF t-shirt) who participated in the lynching, who commented that "the security [in the stadium] was magnificent. I'll even say even too much... We had a small problem in the block K, directly it was settled, the police came and directly they solved the problem".
No comment...
Another video where French fans explain to the police, with video for proof, that the Israel supporters started the fight and that they arrested the French victims.
This is hugely important and no-one is paying attention.
Philippines President Marcos Jr. just signed 2 new bills (the "Maritime Zones Act" and the "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act"), backed by the U.S. State Department (via a press release by the infamous Matthew Miller: state.gov/on-the-philipp…), that claim to implement "international law" but actually are a direct violation of international law in that they attempt to legitimize expansionist claims at the expense of virtually all its neighbors.
Let me explain 🧵
First, some context.
The Philippines exist as an independent country since 1946 when they gained their independence from the United States. They had never existed as a country before.
The establishment of the Philippines was officialized by the Treaty of Manilla.
Crucially, the Treaty of Manilla also defined Filipino territory as based on the earlier Treaty of Paris, when Spain ceded the Philippines to the US at the end of the Spanish-American War of 1898.
You can see these boundaries as defined in the treaty of Paris illustrated here 👇
This is crazy: Israeli police arrests 2 French military personnel ("gendarmes") with diplomatic status in a Christian church (the Eleona Church) that has officially belonged to France for 160 years and is protected by diplomatic immunity: x.com/sambklf/status…
To make things worse the church is located in occupied East Jerusalem - theoretically Palestinian territory - and the arrests occured as the French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot was due to visit it. He cancelled his visit due to the presence of Israeli police on site and the breach of diplomatic immunity.
Yet another unarguable proof that Israel respects absolutely zero rule.
Live reaction by France's foreign minister, who looks very shaken: "I will not enter the Eleona domain today because Israeli security forces entered it armed without first obtaining authorization from France and without agreeing to leave today." x.com/sambklf/status…
In normal language, given this is officially French territory, it's called an armed invasion of sovereign territory...
In this other video you can see the French side asking the Israeli police: "Are you sure you want to arrest French military personnel, in France, on French territory?"