Ash Jain

US national security strategist and geopolitical risk adviser. Former State Dept Policy Planning. D-10, alliances, strategic competition. Views here are my own.

[Michael Carpenter @mikercarpenter]

Alliances founded solely on “interests,” and not values, will inevitably be transient and weak. That’s why NATO and the EU are explicitly founded on shared values. Why we support ROK not DPRK, Ukraine not Russia, and the Quad not China. This is a big departure from US history.

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

The biggest strategic outcome from the Trump-Xi summit: Taiwan is now a bargaining chip in U.S-China relations. (1/6) https://t.co/924TUuhXpZ

[Dan Shapiro @DanielBShapiro]

The United States' network of alliances is such a strategic advantage that our competitors lack. Why would we alienate, antagonize, and abandon them (Ukraine, Denmark, Poland, Taiwan)? It's wrong. It's strategically blind. It's an own goal for the US & a win for Russia & China.

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

Bottom line: Beijing got something even more valuable for its long-term aims. The goal was not merely to elicit a rhetorical concession. It was to reframe how Trump views America's relationship with Taiwan. U.S. support is no longer a strategic commitment, but rather an instrument of leverage that can be scaled up or down in the context of other policy goals and commercial interests. (6/6)

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

The biggest strategic outcome from the Trump-Xi summit: Taiwan is now a bargaining chip in U.S-China relations. (1/6) https://t.co/924TUuhXpZ

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

Prior to the summit, Beijing seemed prepared to offer much of what Trump was seeking, including expanding purchases of U.S. goods such as aircraft, energy, soybeans, and other exports. Yet, despite Trump’s upbeat rhetoric, the summit did not result in any publicly announced bilateral agreements. Beijing’s restraint suggests a deliberate effort to preserve leverage as it gauges Trump’s next moves, including on U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. (5/6)

[Daniel Fried @AmbDanFried]

America at peak power attracted friends because it (often) lived by its higher principles. Worked out well. Now, with tougher competition, the US should not squander that advantage. ⁦@KoriSchake⁩ https://t.co/T2NFdFdoRF

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

As students get set to return to college this week, I am reposting my FP article on the Six Schools of Foreign Policy Thought. Practical framework for understanding where US presidents and political leaders fall on the foreign policy spectrum. https://t.co/vOJJJUc9wX

[Nikolas Gvosdev @FPRI_Orbis]

Map raises questions about efficacy of a red vs. blue U.S. strategy. That swath of red directly impacts feasibility of the "middle corridor" & #IndoAbrahamic corridor. Suggests that U.S. interested in @ThisIsSoliman perspective must adopt @ashjain50/@MatthewKroenig notion ... 1/

[Michigan Football @UMichFootball]

Perfection!

The Michigan Wolverines are national champions!

#GoBlue

[Carnegie Council's The Doorstep @DoorstepPodcast]

Is this part of the #democraticcommunity in practice? Movement along #DTEP lines as laid out by @ashjain50 & @MatthewKroenig ?

[Nikolas Gvosdev @FPRI_Orbis]

Also on that talk: proposal for economic "NATO" that parallels the #DTEP proposal @ashjain50 & @MatthewKroenig have laid out, to reduce China's ability to wield economic tools of coercion by increasing connectivities among the democracies.

[Foreign Policy @ForeignPolicy]

On domestic policy issues, whether political leaders have an R or a D next to their name is often a pretty good guide to their take on any particular issue. But when it comes to foreign policy, the normal rules of politics do not apply, @ashjain50 writes. https://t.co/Z2eivFeDJD

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

Where do the presidential candidates stand on foreign policy? On most domestic issues, where candidates fall on the political ideology spectrum – liberal vs conservative – often guides their views. But not so when it comes to foreign policy. 1/12

[Foreign Policy @ForeignPolicy]

Foreign policy is likely to feature prominently at the upcoming Republican presidential primary debate. Where does the current slate of Republican candidates fall on the U.S. foreign policy spectrum? Read the analysis from @ashjain50: https://t.co/Z2eivFeDJD

[Department of State @StateDept]

We do not stand alone. We’ve built extraordinary coalitions with allies and partners who carry their share of the burden. And we leave this G7 meeting stronger and more united in meeting the challenges of today.
-@SecBlinken

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

How America’s leaders choose to engage in the world will be critical to US security and prosperity. By gaining a clearer sense of the most influential foreign policy camps, voters – and even the candidates themselves – will be in a better position to make informed choices. 12/12

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

Where do the presidential candidates stand on foreign policy? On most domestic issues, where candidates fall on the political ideology spectrum – liberal vs conservative – often guides their views. But not so when it comes to foreign policy. 1/12

[Foreign Policy @ForeignPolicy]

As candidates take the stage at the Republican primary debate, voters will be eager to hear their positions on a variety of issues, including foreign policy. Here's where the current candidates stand on the foreign-policy ideology spectrum:
https://t.co/Z2eivFeDJD

[Ash Jain @ashjain50]

So where does that leave the current slate of GOP candidates? Haley and Christie are squarely in the democratic internationalist camp, while DeSantis and Scott sound like realists. Ramaswamy is veering toward retraction. And of course we know where Trump stands. 11/12