Arnaud Bertrand Profile picture
Sep 10, 2023 28 tweets 14 min read Read on X
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". Image
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".

Image
Image
Image
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" Image
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".

Image
Image
Image
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." Image
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" Image
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]" Image
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" Image
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." Image
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." Image
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…


Image
Image
Image
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".
Image
Image
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.

It's a "policy error of historic proportions" they write.
armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/ar…
Image
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" Image
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".

Image
Image
Image
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".
Image
Image
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".

Image
Image
Image
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".

He said Russia should "in no way dare betray the multi-million Russian population in Ukraine".( and ) nytimes.com/2006/05/03/new…
noblit.ru/node/1041

Image
Image
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".Image
Image
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...

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Arnaud Bertrand

Arnaud Bertrand Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RnaudBertrand

Apr 10
This is fascinating:

An Irish professor of international law - Anthony Carty - has spent considerable time looking through British and French archives, spanning from the 1880s until the late 1970s, to look at the historical understanding of sovereignty of the Spratly Islands. These are the islands in the South China Sea at the core of the present dispute between China and the Philippines.

He discovered that "the archives demonstrate, taken as a whole, that it is the view of the British and French legal experts that as a matter of the international law territory the Xisha Islands [the Paracel Islands] and the Nansha Islands [the Spratly Islands] are Chinese territory".

For instance on the Spratly islands he says: "French legal advice was that France never completed an effective occupation of the Spratlys, and they abandoned them completely in 1956. In the 1930s they recognized that these Spratlys had always been home to Chinese fisherman from Hainan Island and Guangdong. There had never been any Vietnamese or Philippine connection and French interference had only been in its own name and not that of Vietnam. It is the British who then drew a decisive conclusion, from all the French and British records available, that the Chinese were the owners of the Spratlys [the Nansha Islands], a legal position certified as part of British Cabinet records in 1974."

Fascinatingly, and immensely relevant to today's dispute between the Philippines and China, and America's involvement in the matter, he discovered "a record in the mid-1950s in the US National Archive, in which a US under secretary of state says that, while the Filipinos have no claim to the Spratlys, it is in the US interest to encourage them to make a claim anyway to keep Communist China out of the area".

His conclusion: "There is absolutely no doubt that this whole dispute is entirely about the Americans trying to make life difficult for the Chinese. The aggression that is building up against China and the scapegoating of China by the whole of the so-called democratic community of the world is appalling."globaltimes.cn/page/202404/13…
Also, important reminder that the Americans told the Philippines at its independence in 1946 (the Philippines were an American colony) that the Spratlys were not Philippine territory, because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America (in which Spain ceded the Philippines to America).Image
Image
This 👇 is the definition of the territory of the Philippines in the 1898 Treaty of Paris (), on which the Treaty of Manila (1946) - where the U.S. relinquished U.S. sovereignty over the Philippines - is based.

The definition of Filipino territory excludes the Spratly Islands, since they're located beyond the 118th meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, which serves as part of the boundary line in the definition.avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/s…Image
Read 4 tweets
Apr 6
Just a couple of days ago I was warning about how the acceptance of Israel's bombing of Iran's consulate was destroying centuries-old norms around the sanctity of diplomatic facilities and... here you are 🤷‍♂️
Read 4 tweets
Mar 23
That's quite dishonest framing by AP, given that Russia, China (and Algeria) vetoed the US resolution for the very reason that it did NOT call for an immediate ceasefire.

Instead it merely asked to *recognize the importance* of a ceasefire, and to support American negotiation efforts towards that purpose. Which wouldn't have changed the situation on the ground one iota... That's the text of the resolution:

"(The Security Council) Determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering, and towards that end unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages;"

As the US Think Tank Responsible Statecraft rightly writes ():

"The clause does not demand a ceasefire but determines that it is imperative. Its support is not directly for the ceasefire but for the negotiation process the U.S. has been co-leading and whose parameters the U.S. has sought to determine in favor of Israel. The text points out that this effort to secure a ceasefire is 'in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.' This is an Israeli demand that is not likely to be accepted by Hamas in return for a time-limited ceasefire rather than a permanent one. As such, the American draft endorses the Israeli position in the negotiations and indirectly conditions the ceasefire on the release of all hostages, effectively making two million civilian Gazans hostages as well."

The US systematically vetoed all resolutions that were *actually* demanding an immediate ceasefire, so it's pretty clear they don't want one. This was a way to make it look like they were asking for one for PR purposes and for headlines from dishonest journalists such as AP's.responsiblestatecraft.org/us-ceasefire-g…Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
ROC (Taiwan) coastguards killed two mainland fishermen, which I believe are the first such casualties in the Taiwan strait in many years, if not decades.


They died off the coast of the Kinmen archipelago, which belongs to the ROC but which itself is just a couple of miles away from the Chinese mainland. Kinmen was in the news recently as Taiwanese media reported the US had dispatched special forces on the archipelago on a permanent basis (), which is extraordinarily provocative.

So far PRC authorities have been extremely restrained in their response, just condemning the "malignant incident" and asking for an immediate investigation by the ROC. Which goes to show that China is NOT looking for a confrontation in the Taiwan strait, as this is the type of incident that could be a casus belli.

Just imagine for a minute the worldwide outcry if those fishermen had been from the ROC, and killed by the PRC... We just wouldn't hear the end of it.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb…
newsweek.com/american-speci…
This 👇 is also an interesting coincidence, just as these fishermen were being killed...
scmp.com/news/china/dip…
I think this is my 1st ever community note, and quite a ridiculous one.

If the coastguards made a boat capsize whilst chasing it (I doubt it magically capsized on its own and the sea is anything but rough there), and 2 people died as a result... then the coastguards killed them. Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 2
This is quite something! This is John Lander - Australia's former ambassador to Iran and Deputy Ambassador to China - explaining what the "rules-based order" actually is.

In his words it's "a set of ever varying, constantly vacillating rules devised by the United States for the benefit of the United States and its Western allies." He points out that "one of the most difficult thing about the rules-based order is finding out what the rules are!"

Link to the whole interview at the end of the thread.
On this topic I've been making the point since the beginning of Israel's war on Gaza that if one takes a step back, it's really at heart a war of the "rules-based order" against international law 👇. And I really believe that's a key prism to view the war.
In the same interview Lander also speaks about the war on Gaza from an international law perspective:

"The Palestinians don't have a state... [They're] under forceful occupation by Israel so the actions by Hamas - as horrendous as it was - is more in the character of a rebellion against the oppression of an occupying power than an invasion of one state by another. [It's] a paradox because [Israel] claim that Gaza and the West Bank do actually belong to Israel and that the Palestinians have no right to it, so on the one hand they say 'it is ours' and on the other hand they say 'we've been invaded' from within our own territory..."
Read 4 tweets
Jan 30
This is a absolutely fantastic example of data manipulation. Credit to @nikstankovic_ for spotting it (you can see his reply to @AgatheDemarais's post).

Not surprising coming from The Economist but the manipulation is still quite insane once you understand it.

Let me explain 🧵
Image
So what you understand from The Economist's graph is exactly what @AgatheDemarais understood: "oh my god, Japan has been 'derisking' from China for years, their economic reliance on China is low, Germany is so behind!".

Right? Well, it's TOTALLY wrong.
As a matter of fact Japanese exports to China are 26% higher than German exports to China 👇. 153B in exports to China from Japan in 2021 vs 121B from Germany.

Those are the actual numbers.
Image
Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(