🚨Slightly Mortifying Personal News 🚨

I wrote a book and it's now on pre-sale (link below).

I've spent years yelling at my screen as influential people who can or should know better said wild things about trade to advance their agendas.

This book is my attempt to push back. The book will be released on May 23rd of this year, published by @CanburyPress. You can pre-order it below.

It is my attempt to explain trade policy and the choices it involves as I would if anyone were ever dumb enough to ask me over a glass of wine.

canburypress.com/products/why-p…

1/ I like people and think they're overwhelmingly good and decent.

My default assumption is that whatever the slogans, or extremist elements, the vast majority of the people on the streets are just appalled by the images coming out of Gaza, and are calling for peace. 2/ Has every single person marching got a comprehensive and fool proof 12 point plan for reconciling Palestinian independence, Israeli security, regional geo-stability and the million other factors at play?

No, and that's fine. Marches are about sending signals that we care.

1/ International law lacks enforcement because major powers negotiating it did not want mechanisms that could kinetically prevent, curtail or punish the pursuit of their ends, even if the means involved breach the letter or spirit of the law.

They still don't.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1718179511253061663

2/ What little power international law has is almost entirely normative.

It only matters as long as countries believe it matters - and so for lack of better options we repeat ad nauseum that it does, while also arguing its broad benefits outweigh any specific constraints.

1/ Remember the best and most consistently accurate way of understanding Putin is to think of him as a mob boss.

It's The Wire, not the West Wing.

Prigozhin disrespected the Godfather and made him look weak. That's it. That's the only relevant consideration. 2/ "Won't this undermine Russia's efforts in the Sahel?"

Putin doesn't care. The Sahel is important to Russia's strategic plans. It's not important to him.

Murdering Capos who disrespect you and make you look weak is Putin's understanding of how you stay in power.

I wanted to go through this point by point, respectfully and assuming every question raised was in absolute good faith.

Note: I know nothing about this man or his politics (though I can guess) and am treating his questions seriously for the benefit of other readers.

https://twitter.com/DeplorableVet84/status/1674125214924394516

The US has exactly as many serving troops fighting in Ukraine as its NATO European allies: zero.

The US **is** contributing a lot of materiel, but Europeans collectively are also sending a lot, both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.

1/ Since absolutely no one asked, that David Sacks about the 'failed counteroffensive' broken down paragraph by paragraph.

Summary: Long tweets are an abomination and tech bro geopolitics is painful.

🧵 2/ The Ukrainians are making territorial gains every day and have almost half a year before rain or snow makes mobility impossible.

They are advancing on some of heaviest fortifications built since World War II.

This is what cautious tactical offensive warfare looks like.

1/ The refusal of serious people to YouTube debate cranks, or to invite them onto mainstream media programs is not shutting down 'debate'.

You have to qualify to play against Nadal at Wimbeldon.

Similarly ideas and people need a certain level of credibility to earn engagement. 2/ We debate ideas constantly.

Discourse is a messy and often frustrating debate between ideas bidding for the respect, resources and support of policymakers and the general public.

YouTube Gladiatorial Sophistry is just one, often shitty, manifestation - not the sole option.

1/ Hi. I teach negotiations.

Some thoughts about where I disagree with Aaron about how compromise and negotiation logic apply to this situation.

Taking the comment in good faith because the underlying questions are interesting and many others share Aaron's view.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1661377546489872384

2/ Aaron is absolutely correct that a negotiation involves compromise from both sides.

If there are ever peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine will not expect to get 100% of what it wants - but what it wants is A LOT more than all of its territory back.

I can't speak to how genuine it is but there's a sound political logic to Zelenskyy showering love and photo opportunities on Western politicians that support Ukraine.

Diplomacy 301: maximise how much domestic political upside there is for foreign leaders in doing what you want. The British public has a VERY pro-Ukrainian position.

The British public also feel very good about how much support the UK is providing to Ukraine.

Giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to bask in that is good politics from Zelenskyy and incentivizes keeping arms coming.

1/ Treating this question in good faith because I can appreciate how someone may intuitively wonder.

To begin with, no matter how large a civil service team you put together, it's not going to contain expertise on the technical detail of everything 4,000 laws cover.

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1656386497040228354

2/ So what does examining a law actually involve.

Let's pick an EU directive at random - this one is on the reduction of single use plastics.

So your first step would probably be to find someone in the civil service who actually knows about this...

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…

1/ A review of the @dfat diplomatic network has just concluded and it's really interesting.

Some reactions on key points if international relations is your thing...

(This will be long, sorry.)
(h/t @stephendziedzic)

theguardian.com/australia-news… 2/ I think like many middle powers, Australia hasn't always been fully clear on what a diplomatic network, outside a few key capitals, is actually FOR,

At least theoretically, the primary purpose of diplomats is not 'representation' but insight and access.

1/ I think both those worrying and those cheering for current government moves on the basis they are salting the earth and inoculating the country against a future Rejoin effort are worrying/gloating needlessly.

I appreciate that's bold but hear me out. 2/ Short of declaring war on North Korea and surrendering unconditionally, there is almost nothing a Parliament in 2023 can do LEGISLATIVELY to prevent the United Kingdom from one day re-joining the European Union... if the massive POLITICAL impediments are somehow overcome.

The popularity of the "Deep State saboteurs" theory is easy to explain.

A certain type of person believes governance is easy - all you need is to put a tough, no nonsense man who will "just get on with it" in charge.

Then you do, they fail, and so you invent a shadowy cabal. It's not that slapping down a goods border where none has existed for decades is hard or disruptive, the way everyone told you it would be, there must be a 5th column thwarting all your miracle 'technical solutions' and preventing British businesses from 'getting on with it.'

1/ Sigh. Ok, listen:

1️⃣ Joining the CPTPP is good.

2️⃣ In any future scenario where a government has the desire and opportunity to rejoin the EU but finds doing so incompatible with CPTPP membership, that government can just leave the CPTPP (and should). 2/
3️⃣ UK did a good job rolling over EU FTAs and negotiating new ones with CPTPP members so trade benefits of CPTPP are unlikely to be "huge".

4️⃣ Primary benefits are geostrategic, not economic, plus being in the CPTPP will position the UK well for Chinese or US accessions.

1/ There's a serious point here.

My earnest belief is that in 2016/19 Conservatives in the US and UK did well electorally WHILE relentlessly owning the libs and have since internalized the idea they succeeded BECAUSE they owned the libs.

So that become their North Star.

https://twitter.com/hhesterm/status/1635934645421318144

2/ I can't prove this, but I strongly suspect this belief in lib ownage über alles is driven by a class of conservative political consultants working backward to explain why their advice in '16 and '19 was brilliant and foundational to success, and always will be.

Alright! The feed for Putin's State of the Nation address has gone live. Speech due to start nowish but it's his country and he'll be late if he wants to.

Currently showing the whitest audience since the Republic National Convention.

Will live tweet 👇.

Mixed news for Sergei Shoigu, the Russian Minister of Defense who didn't score a front row seat but is nowhere near a window and thus presumably safe from the world's most deserved defenestration until at least the afterparty.

We have 45 minutes for the show today and are currently negotiating whether we spend 43 or 44 of them on the balloon thing.

I'm team 44. Going to Boost John's audio a bit and then post a clean version, as well as uploading the podcast!

There's no magical third option where tanks aren't needed.

Either send tanks to help Ukraine defend itself against the literally hundreds of Russian tanks invading it, or don't and they'll continue to make-do with old Soviet junk and brave infantry.

That's it. Only choices. Also could Germans fucking spare me the "I'm historically uncomfortable with our tanks in Eastern Europe."

If your role in the 1930's and 40's consisted solely of peacefully transferring tanks to Poland to resist an invasion from Stalin you wouldn't still be apologising in 23.

1/ I teach negotiation skills and so have some confidence in stating that the question "Should we negotiate with Putin?" is so ambiguously worded as to be completely useless.

Almost every word in the question is open to being interpreted in wildly different ways. 2/ "SHOULD we negotiate with Putin?"

This could mean:
- sending overtures now
- being open to overtures from Russia
- meeting Putin's preconditions
- setting preconditions and talking only if Putin meets them
- negotiating within existing red lines
- moving our red lines

1/ The vitriol inflation inherent to the grifter eco-system economy inevitably pushes them off anything even resembling a sane position with mainstream appeal.

In a competition for clicks and attention, they meme themselves onto lonely ledges.

Let's take the right on Ukraine. 2/ "Ukraine is in a tough spot. Zelenskyy seems brave and nice. However, we just can't afford to support them because we need to spend money at home / it would risk escalation with Russia."

I don't agree with that obviously, but it's measured in its language and normie friendly.

What makes this funny is how hard he's having to work to reconcile two utterly antithetical desires:

1⃣ Wanting to exercise his right to run the silly toy he paid $44 billion for any way he damn well pleases

2⃣ Wanting to be seen as a democratic champion of the ordinary man He is under absolutely no obligation to put anything he does to a vote. It's HIS platform. Privately owned. He can just DO things (though moving forward he should probably at least consult his investors, his lawyers, and Twitter's government relations folks first).