I struggle with the NATO enlargement debate for the following reasons. -- The prima facie case is "we ignored Russia at our peril; if we only took their concerns into account--i.e. did not enlarge NATO to the East--then things would have turned out better. Didn't they tell us, time and again, that this was unacceptable." -- But then in comes the counterargument: "If we did not find a safe anchoring for these countries in NATO, they'd be much less secure than they are today. In effect, there would be many more Moldovas and Ukraines." Also: "Why should we have indulged Russia with its imperialist fantasies; we should have actually been straightforward with the Russians, so they'd face the reality that they had lost the Cold War. Tough love. Instead we tried to humor them." -- Then comes in the other counterargument: "Then, why should we be surprised that a resurgent Russia is trying to screw us over. Tough love. And as for Eastern Europe, are they more secure today, with an aggressive Russia at their doorstep, and Art. 5 little better than make-believe?" -- The counterargument to that is: "Absolutely, they are better off, just look at Ukraine." -- "But Ukraine would not have happened if..." -- "Of course, it would..." This is a conversation one is bound to have in one's head. Arguments on both sides have merit, yet they can't all be true, can they? Unfortunately, when it comes to this whole topic, I am like Isiah Berlin's fox, jumping here and there, because each position--when taken to its logical conclusion--leads to absurdity. In any case, the evidence is pretty thin for much of this on-going argument. What we do have mounting evidence for is that throughout the 1990s the Russians incessantly complained about NATO's eastern enlargement. It wasn't something Putin suddenly came up with in 2007. Make of it what you will.

📢 Join us in Surrey, UK, for the "Challenges to Europe – European Challenges" Conference, exploring the forces shaping politics, society, and democracy across the continent 🇪🇺 📅 28-29 May 2025 | 📍University of Surrey 🔗 Free registration: 2025cbeeuropeanchallenges.ev…

People are getting excited about Macron's offer "to open a strategic debate" on how France could protect Europe with its nuclear weapons. But I don't see how this debate can come to any conclusion other than that it cannot. Let's take a closer look... 1/

✳️CALL FOR PAPERS✳️ The CBE, with @PolStudiesAssoc German, Italian & Greek Specialists, invites you to the Challenges to Europe - European Challenges Conference at the @UniOfSurrey, 28-29 May 2025. Submit your abstract by 20 Jan 2025! Details: surrey.ac.uk/news/call-paper…

guys I've seen the video and it's a bombshell that will end the campaign. Trump actually confuses structural realism for neoclassical realism

This is finally out ! “A gendered analysis of US decline: a cautionary tale” available Open Access in International Relations journal 💥 @LSBU_LSS #trumpism #USdecline #hybridmasculinity #UShegemony #FeministIR journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful…

On the UK Strategic Defence Review’s ‘External Reviewer’ model… Heartened by @FTusa284’s optimism, but there are two key risks to this approach that need mitigating: 1. The peril of groupthink, and 2. The very notion of outsourced ‘Reviewers’ To tackle the latter first… 1/23