@NicholasDanfort writing for @gmfus probably argues for the most limited of possible sanctions http://www.gmfus.org/publications/containing-us-turkish-crisis-after-s-400s …pic.twitter.com/nfbK1JcTFZ
Show this thread
Among the US experts I follow most closely, I think there is a consensus on a "middle option" of sanctions on Turkey, aimed at defining red lines without burying either Turkey or the hopes for a revival of US - Turkish relations.
-
-
-
.
@nateschenkkan suggests something more robust, but is anxious not to see the US "go nuclear" https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-reports/turkey-s-missile-diplomacy-recommendations-us-sanctions-after-delivery-s-400 …pic.twitter.com/03v4ubOJVB
Show this thread -
.
@MaxHoffmanDC makes a similar argument, but notes a broader array of toolshttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2019/03/21/467518/responding-turkeys-purchase-russias-s-400-missile-system/ …Show this thread -
I have not studied the sanctions tools closely enough to make a detailed set of recommendations, but I agree with the broader set of assumptions laid out by all of these three.
Show this thread -
But I think all three of these articles are a good corrective to some in Congress who wish to "make Turkey an example" by showing how much damage the US can do. The phrase is from a senior staffer a couple of years ago.
Show this thread -
Finally, I'd note that the crisis over Cyprus, in which the US is a relatively minor player, may create an opportunity for the US and EU to do something they have so far proven unwilling or unable to do: think seriously about a joint strategy on Turkey.
Show this thread End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't the consensus always by default - indeed by definition - around the "middle option"?
-
I'm not sure that's what happened in, say, 2002 - 2003
-
Well they only went for 1 of 3 members of the "axis" (Bolton's back and now working on the 2nd). So isn't that middling? The trick is framing the debate in such a way that your desired outcome is the "middle," "reasonable," "consensus" option.
-
I understand the theory behind your argument. I also recognize that the construct of hard, soft, and in between options in, in fact, a construct. But given the debates I am hearing, I am not sure how much light it brings to the topic at hand
-
Fair enough. Still funny how the construct fits the forming consensus, no?
-
Fair point. And if I studied CAATSA more closely, I could likely divide up the proposed responses into 4, 5, 27 groups. Likely, once we get past the basic question of nuclear, some, or not really, there'll be room for a more nuanced breakdown.
-
And likely our reasoned breakdowns and sage recommendations will be for naught anyway, given the fickle, feckless, myopic, populistic, and chauvinistic leadership in both Washington and Ankara.
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.