My quibble is mostly given that the Weeds presents these segments functionally as 'explainers' rather than as more directly persuasive, argumentative pieces. They are supposed to give people a sense of the state of Biden's policy and perhaps the state of the debate. 2/18
-
-
Option (2) has been unacceptable for a long time, and I don't think Ashford or anyone else is arguing at this point to just hand everyone nukes and see where the chips (and fallout) falls. 13/18
Näytä tämä ketju -
But here is where I want the disengagement doves to be more honest about their position: disengagement almost certainly means selling Taiwan into the same oppression as Hong Kong. It probably means other E. Asian states becoming PRC satellites. 14/18
Näytä tämä ketju -
The same policy, applied in Europe, would be similarly bad news for the Baltic states. And there is an argument there, a sort of every-democracy-for-itself why-should-we-have-to-pay-for-it argument. 15/18
Näytä tämä ketju -
But I want the people making that argument to be *honest* about it, that it means throwing many of the world's small democracies to the wolves because no % of GDP spending is going to let Taiwan beat the PRC alone (or Lithuania beat Russia). 16/18
Näytä tämä ketju -
It seems that the great majority of foreign policy experts, of politicians, and of American voters find that unacceptable though. And *that* is why we're pivoting to great power competition, which is why, as
@mattyglesias puts it, we're building more boats. 17/18Näytä tämä ketju -
Anyway, it's a good podcast, worth a listen,
@EmmaMAshford is smart and sharp, I just wish she had given the other side a bit more of a friendly airing, or@mattyglesias had brought on someone to argue the point (e.g.@ConsWahoo who sure does love ships). end/18Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.