đź§µTo all who follow me here: I wish you a Happy New Year. May 2024 be better than 2023. Most of all, I hope that in 2024 we finally recognize that it's not enough to respond to crises, but that we must shape the world in a way that favors freedom and prosperity. My wishes: 1/7
There are just months before we elect our new President. In this critical election year in the US, we need to stop using the current normative language about "defending the rules-based international order" and shift to a straightforward conversation about national interest. 2/7
in 2024 we need to speak plainly about which theaters remain critical to American security and prosperity, what our alliances should look like, the force posture we need and the resources we must generate to ensure our military can deter and, if need defeat, our adversaries. 3/7
In 2024 we need to relearn the basics of hard power, with national security priorities front and center in our economic policy. We need to rebuild America's defense industrial base, with redundancies in the system so we can produce weapons and munitions fast and at scale. 4/7
To continue to pour money & technology into #China in the name of "globalization and "complex interdependence" is strategic myopia of the first order. For decades we have pretended that free markets are synonymous with wholesale technology transfer. In 2024 this must stop.5/7
My hope is that in 2024 we will revisit the basics of national power: a strong manufacturing base, excellence in R&D, a strong military, and last but not least social cohesion without which democracies can't mobilize in a crisis. We need plain talk about the dangers we face. 6/7
To confront the Sino/Russian/Iranian/N. Korean axis we must restore the centrality of individual citizenship in our democracies. We need to relearn that citizenship is not only about rights but also obligations--especially when it comes to national security and defense. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Watching political gyrations in the US and Europe re: continued military and economic aid to #Ukraine, I’ve become convinced that unless the West replaces the mantra “for as long as it takes” with “whatever Ukraine needs to win as quickly as possible” this will end badly. 1/5
We can resupply weapons/munitions but if #Ukraine continues to hemorrhage people it will not be able to sustain the effort. In my assessment, Russia now has about a fourfold advantage when it comes to population relative to Ukraine. Kyiv needs to offset this with technology. 2/5
Russia has shown that it can fight and mobilize at the same time.
If the war continues to be a war of attrition (as the war in Ukraine has increasingly morphed into) Russia will have the advantage of mass. To counter this, the West needs to abandon its current IV drip policy.3/5
🧵I hear once again arguments that sophisticated military capabilities matter more than sheer numbers, and how @NATO governments should prioritize smaller but more capable militaries. Let me restate my view that this is not an either-or proposition. 1/5 atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atla…
When it comes to national security and defense, the US and especially our European allies in @NATO need to rebuild the armed forces by both continuing to invest in new mil. capabilities but also by building up the numbers to scale, especially trained reserves. And do it now. 2/5
I grow weary of hearing that Europe doesn’t have the resources to build the core of @NATO’s. conventional capabilities. This is a wealthy continent by any measure, with its national populations outmatching Russia’s several fold. What’s missing is leadership and commitment. 3/5
🧵Since several responses to my recent postings have recycled the the mantra of “multipolarity,” I have to say this: That concept is just about as useful when it comes to crafting a national strategy as “complex interdependence.” I’m sorry but I left academia for a reason… 1/4
I also don’t do “narratives.” Do you know what it feels like when you sit in a meeting and bureaucrats talk about their country’s national security in terms of “narratives” while our enemies build weapon systems, munitions and expand their armies’ manpower? Seriously…? 2/4
BLUF: in the final analysis there is no such thing as “complex interdependence”; there is only dependence, with winners and losers. And to talk about “multipolarity” is just about as serious as stating the obvious, i.e., that there are multiple power centers in the world-dah..3/4
🧵I work on nat’l security affairs, so let me share what has been on my mind lately. Having returned to the US after 7 yrs overseas, I’m convinced that we need to move our public discourse away from group categories and refocus on the centrality of citizenship in a democracy. 1/7
Citizenship is about responsibility for the country. We seem to have forgotten that it is about owning the nation’s fate, and about a mutuality of obligation to people you never met simply because they are part of our nation. It’s about the public good trumping partisanship. 2/7
We’ve replaced citizens with consumers—consumers of rights or of security or peace. Recently a man told me that since he pays his taxes which then pay for our military, defending the country is not his obligation. I guess to him a soldier is akin to a hired security guard. 3/7
🧵Having read this piece, I should point out that—like most of what’s been written on the war in #Ukraine—it presumes we have the ability to shape the outcome at will. Since we haven’t provided weapons in numbers Kyiv needs to win, that isn’t the case. 1/6 foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/redefi…
Ukraine’s negotiating position will depend on what happens on the battlefield. Kyiv had a real chance to deal Russia a strategic defeat during the first counteroffensive, when Russia had no defenses position in place, no working logistics and no leadership to speak of. 2/6
The first Ukrainian counteroffensive was the time to supply them with what they needed to win: long-range fires, MBTs and airplanes. Had we given them what they got by the time the second offensive started they could have broken through. But the West was too timid then. 3/6
đź§µI seldom write on domestic politics--over the years I penned maybe a dozen such pieces. But now that I am back in the US after 7yrs overseas, I want to share my impressions while they are still fresh. It's a bit like rediscovering your country--both good and troublesome. 1/10
On many levels Washington, DC is its old self--high energy, vibrant--the corporate town when it comes to government and policy. For someone like me working on national security issues this is the place to be. But it's also a city where I sense a profound sense of unease. 2/10
Our politics has become divisive to a point of toxicity. The lines are drawn so sharply that what used to be a vibrant debate about differing policy positions often erupts into anger laced with invective. The tenor is not "I win, you lose," but rather "I win, you disappear." 3/10