Kotkin, who is one of the very few liberals I sort of like/respect, and he had a podcast on the sitrep here which, though it starts with some lines I think are way off, is as usual a good/solid analysis. Snippets:
Ultimately, we've had the absolute wrong leadership running our foreign policy, sometimes despite the POTUS opinions (think Vindman/Ciaramella/Nuland/Blinken), for much of the past 25 years at least. I think you can find the podcast itself on all the regular places.
Quote:
So I'm with Blackwell and Fontaine that allies have to be on side and that negotiations have to take place and diplomacy, our diplomacy has to be as good as our F-35s, as our submarines, the Columbus-class submarines. That's how good our diplomacy has to be, and they have to be in tandem and with allies. So this is not an idea that we go after the Chinese risking World War III, losing all of our allies. I wouldn't sign onto that, Reagan and Schultz wouldn't have signed onto that. I don't think that's what Gallagher and Pottinger are arguing for even though their rhetoric is about victory. They're borrowing rhetoric from Reagan and Schultz.
I'm more on the Erik Prince side that our weapons/drones aren't working real well, but in any case, I agree we can't really eliminate China nor Russia and we should work with diplomacy wherever possible because allowing Russia to turn Ukraine into a moonscape a la Gaza/Bakhmut isn't helpful to America or Ukraine, and we have more at risk than they do in that venture.Quote:
I'm not ready to give that one out yet, but I'm just saying that we can expect their behavior to continue to help us on our side, consolidate our relationships, alliances. We just need to raise our game so that it's a combination of strength, force, building back our defense industrial complex, deploying 21st not 20th century weapons and all the things that your audience knows about from your shows, but let's reinvest in our diplomacy. Let's get skilled again at the Schultz level in a diplomacy so that people like Blackwell and Fontaine, some of our best national security people, and Gallagher and Pottinger, again, two of our best national security people certainly on China, as well as those people on the other side of the aisle from them can have this shared bipartisan, successful peace through strength policy in all the theaters in which we operate.
We don't want war. War hurts us because we have more to lose. We have the bigger economy. We have the free and open societies. We're prosperous. We don't want to lose that. Look at Ukraine being destroyed as we speak. Russia wins the war by destruction. I can't have it. Nobody can have it. They can Gazafy Ukraine and make Ukraine look like the Gaza moonscape that we have now as a result of Israel's response to Hamas' atrocities and nihilism. So I understand those arguments and I accept those arguments, but I still think we can do what I'm advocating, provided we combine the force investments with the diplomacy investments. It's not rocket science, Aaron.
Ultimately, we've had the absolute wrong leadership running our foreign policy, sometimes despite the POTUS opinions (think Vindman/Ciaramella/Nuland/Blinken), for much of the past 25 years at least. I think you can find the podcast itself on all the regular places.
