Second, are “primacists” a thing? (I’m glad we seem to agree “isolationists” aren’t; as also that there are many kinds of internationalists). Well, we can call them “deep engagers” perhaps, as D&I do. Shifrinson’s neo-primacists might be most suite
Should have read this one earlier! Convincing term I will use for future papers @shifrinson Neo-Primacy and the Pitfalls of US Strategy toward China https://t.co/W6tXnkSReQ
@gtotango @PatPorter76 @dhnexon @Eric_M_Murphy @jimgolby @shifrinson in @TWQgw could prove helpful https://t.co/OpCSuXF78L
RT @MicahZenko: In the era these generals believed the US "enjoyed global primacy," it failed to achieve many geopolitical objectives and l…
RT @MicahZenko: In the era these generals believed the US "enjoyed global primacy," it failed to achieve many geopolitical objectives and l…
In the era these generals believed the US "enjoyed global primacy," it failed to achieve many geopolitical objectives and lost wars. So it's been in a state of relative competition then and now....as all countries are.
Best described and analysed here: https://t.co/H8lltGbLAY
RT @defpriorities: “When it comes to blocking Chinese regional hegemony, the United States should encourage capable local actors such as In…
Prize for best use of a Will Ferrell movie to make a vital point about US grand strategy goes to @shifrinson: https://t.co/xnzOoRvUca https://t.co/ETx5AFWjgW
“When it comes to blocking Chinese regional hegemony, the United States should encourage capable local actors such as India, Japan, and Australia to balance China while backstopping their efforts,” writes @shifrinson in @TWQgw. https://t.co/qUbIiUWKgU
Neo-Primacy and the Pitfalls of US Strategy toward China https://t.co/MWcJKvDwwK