meaning things like "collateral damage" ?
that would mean, from US pov, "what deals can be cut w/ Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad to stop slaughter? At what price?"
-
-
Same w/ US war in Afghanistan. Much coverage of US bombing hospital–as is right–but odd silence over war itself, what is and…
-
…what isn't at stake; why US troops are still there; what the desired strategic outcome is and what it costs.
-
i.e. I think the failure to think broadly is structural--something that bright minds are unlikely to change on their own
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the problem is multifold--we'd have to eg. have a good idea of Russian intentions and internal debates
-
I'm not Russia expert, but I think conventional wisdom assumptions of Putin's FP are wrong
-
if we assume Russia is expansionist and looking to reassert its influence in world in face of "weak" West
-
that calls for a certain policy prescription
-
but if that's wrong, than the current policy prescriptions of "standing up" to Putin could make things worse
-
Yes, v much agreed.
-
it's interesting to read histories of the Cold War in that respect--to grasp Soviet perceptions of US policy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.