Mike Mazarr

@MMazarr

Senior Political Scientist at . U.S. defense policy, East Asian security, nuclear weapons and deterrence. Opinions mine, RTs not endorsements.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: srpanj 2019.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @MMazarr

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @MMazarr

  1. 2. velj

    If significant numbers die b/c China coerced countries into failing to protect themselves, this will backfire in a major way. Like many examples of Beijing's overreaching, this is near-guaranteed to produce resentment vs China and the national gov'ts that don't stand up to it

    Poništi
  2. 28. sij

    This powerful thread + discussion raise an issue critical to strategic competition: manpower & personnel. In an infowars/AI, distributed and "mission command" future, hyper-talented leaders will be at a premium. Policies that force many out will be huge competitive disadvantage

    Poništi
  3. 28. sij

    Brilliant essay on Brexit notes risk of scapegoating common to populist agendas: "The big failings of the UK"--eg low investment--"have nothing to do with EU membership." When Brexit doesn't solve them, where does UK turn? via

    Poništi
  4. 27. sij

    For anyone following Chinese information operations: A powerful Freedom House report offers a superb overview of Beijing's growing activities. I think the evidence of effectiveness is more mixed (as w/Russia) but this is a great primer

    Poništi
  5. 24. sij

    Great argument from : "Russia does seem to be entering a transition period, one in which it has little incentive to exacerbate an already poisonous relationship with the US." A modest but real chance to seek stabilizing measures in rivalry

    Poništi
  6. 24. sij

    Reminds me of April 2003: See! All the forecasts of disaster in Iraq were wrong! The real cost of strategic errors unfolds over years. Odd, too, amid new evidence we were a hair's breadth from casualties + escalation. Apparently some warnings were valid

    Poništi
  7. 24. sij

    Holding tightly to a "right" to meddle in other societies--at the cost of failing to mitigate autocratic states' dangerous disruptive activities within US and other democratic societies --would be a strategic own goal of catastrophic proportions

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 24. sij

    As an important side benefit, such a shift would temper the elements of US policy most threatening to Russia and China. A long way to go and trust is an issue--but this could open the way to norms on societal non-interference that would promote US domestic security

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 24. sij

    For and and other restrainers: Really nice piece by that provides an ideal first principle of restraint. We can debate dropping alliances, offshore balancing etc, but this ought to be the starting point--no forcible regime change.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 24. sij

    3/3 Then, too, will China let the US "bring the hammer down" on NK? Small amounts of $ will be enough to keep NK afloat. Much more persuasive thesis is that maximum pressure is failing across the board--and risks tumbling into escalation and war

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 24. sij

    2/3 A country w/severe threat perceptions gets nukes to ward off risks and refuses denuke demands--but *will* abandon them when threatened w/economic extinction? And to buy this policy the US risks ties w/allies via use of bitterly hated secondary sanctions?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 24. sij

    "For strategic and domestic political reasons North Korea will never voluntarily forfeit its nuclear weapons"; therefore "maximum pressure could be the only path to denuclearizing North Korea." This claim flies in the face of all current evidence. 1/3

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 17. sij

    Agree--but the US will not live with this trajectory forever. Choices to stop it are narrowing, but if the trend continues, at *some* point a US president will see a briefing and say, "We cannot live w/that." Lesson: imperfect arms control = better than waiting for that moment

    Poništi
  14. 17. sij

    Right, + form of restraint: Limit our actions to equivalent of R2P Pillar 1 + 2--global norms and help when asked--and not Pillar 3, forcible imposition. Country in transition to democ asks for aid, we're all about it; democ in econ pain, we help. But we don't remake societies

    Poništi
  15. 16. sij

    2/2 A demand for legislative deliberation on war isn't perfect--Congress authorized Iraq. But we've learned. And this habit will make the US *more* credible and secure: More committed to its values, more judicious, less likely to waste strategic capital on half-baked adventures

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 16. sij

    An inspiring bipartisan statement: "Rather than debating and voting on present conflicts, Congress habitually acquiesces to the executive branch’s actions. This must change; the Constitution demands it, and the people we represent deserve it." Amen. 1/2

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 16. sij

    Of course, ultra hawks do not *expect* the terms to be accepted. Just as w/Iraq in 2002, such demands justify "maximum pressure" which = permanent confrontation and serve goal of regime change. If the target actually accepts many conditions (eg JCPOA), the reaction is horror

    Poništi
  18. 16. sij

    Indeed; and in spirit, it's the sort of multilateral approach that is more likely to shape China's behavior over the long-term: Deepen and strengthen the "rest of the world" rules Beijing has to play by. Efforts like this, not bilateral trade wars, should be the playbook

    Poništi
  19. 16. sij

    A brilliant, counter-conv. wisdom thread by . If true it *might* suggest that Putin would be in the market for deals to temper int'l disputes and create a safe + stable context for this path. A narrow opening for a new regional security dialogue? Could be tested, anyway

    Poništi
  20. 16. sij

    Interesting elite survey. Confirms that China confronts biting dilemma between achieving hegemony and causing backlash. But in a world of hedgers, the US needs to be wary of overly-aggressive confrontation. We risk being tagged as cause of regional competition; leave that to PRC

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·