Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
3) We stay in the eastern pacific, and since our goals (democratic and independent Taiwan, S. Korea, etc) conflict with the PRC's goals, we engage in great power competition over those conflicts. 12/xx
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
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
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
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
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. 17/18
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/18
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
