In a new Substack post on the Ukraine War, Emma Ashford warns that "the substitution of escalation for critical thinking continues apace in Western capitals," with pressure "now focused less on specific systems and more on riskier forms of escalation." https://open.substack.com/pub/emmamashford/p/escalation-is-not-a-substitute-for?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=yxtq
Not convinced by this. I think Phillips P O'Brien has the best take on this.
@stormbird3 Can you be more specific?
@kevinrothrock
I do urge you to look at O' bBriens work because he is far more more eloquent then I, but in a nutshell, the author says why should the US risk it's interests protecting a country in the 'In Between Lands'.
In her view, nuclear powers are the only ones that count and the US should hold it's nose while Russia sorts out a border dispute.
We did that in Chechnia, Syria, Georgia etc al and look where that got us.
@stormbird3 Chechnya wasn't a border dispute. I don't think it's only nuclear powers that matter, but American interests certainly matter for America. Honestly, I glanced at his Twitter account, and his polemics are all pretty familiar (and boring, IMO).
@kevinrothrock check out his substack. He left twitter ages ago. Not boring, but definitely humble and truthful imho. Also consistently correct on the way in which the war is going to be won. I think it takes a while to move away from the great power mindset. It's not just the US and Russia that count. Escalation fears are overblown and the importance of standing up for right against wrong understated. Anyway, good luck with the reporting.
@stormbird3 He's active on Twitter. With all due respect, his commentary is standard Western consensus stuff.
@kevinrothrock @stormbird3 I don’t think that is quite fair. He has a very particular point of view informed by his work on WW2, that there is no such thing as a decisive battle (not even Normandy or Stalingrad) but that wars are won or lost by interdicting supply lines and destroying enemy capacity. His work has greatly influenced Stephen Kotkin, for example, some of whose Stalin bio Vol 3 (still in progress) is organized this perspective.
@kevinrothrock @stormbird3 If that is standard Western consensus, it is due in part to OBrien’s influence.
@gehlbach @kevinrothrock @stormbird3 Wasn't even aware there are people recommending putting NATO troops in Ukraine... probably want to avoid the pattern that an American soldier dies in a foreign country trying to stabilize it, and then more troops have to be sent in to justify the first one dying. Also had no clue Ukraine was as high as ~7% of the Pentagon's budget.
@gehlbach @stormbird3 He's an expert in his field, of course, but everything I see in his Twitter feed I've seen a thousand times from NAFO accounts for the last 2.5 years. I don't know that his particular hawkishness maps onto the thinking in Washington, but his rhetoric is completely рукопожатный for social media.
@kevinrothrock @gehlbach. he did leave twitter for bluesky but I guess he's back. My bad. I left twitter myself. I would recommend reading his substack and his book. Not boring or typical at all but definitely self deprecating. He has been consistently correct in his analysis. Not quite sure why you think he's hawkish. I think he just wants a just result for Ukraine Russia war instead of appeasement which was the gist of the article you boosted. This isn't a Neocon supporting the Iraq War.
@stormbird3 @gehlbach Appeasement is a very charged term, and throwing it around doesn't fill me with confidence that I'm being directed to analysis that isn't another familiar polemic.
@kevinrothrock @gehlbach ok well thanks for engaging. Just referring to the article. She got it wrong.