I don’t usually comment on personnel/personality issues because there is little point. However, the possible selection of @MatthewRojansky @kennaninstitute as NSC Russia Director is an easy yes, & the opposition to him captures the limits of Russia analysis in DC (1/x)
First, as @gavinbwilde has noted, literally from personal experience, an NSC Russia director is the subject-matter expert on Russia who prepares info for NSC Principals. The position is meant to coordinate, not make policy. (2/x)
In case of crisis, the NSC is responsible for getting ideas together quickly and they rely on the these experts to get them various ideas that illustrate the range of policy options and their potential consequences from the rest of government. (3/)
There is no question Rojansky knows the country or issue at hand (policy expertise), has a broad range of contacts to understand different constituencies, understands the various trade-offs between policy choices, and can do the bureaucratic job of moving things along. (4/x)
Specifically, I do not believe anyone on earth would dispute Rojansky knows Russia, knows everyone who works on the Russia problem set, knows the various problems Russia poses for US interests and policies, and is a bureaucratically capable person. (5/x)
The issue here is effectively a religious question: what do you think happens when Putin leaves power in Russia? Do you believe that Russia then becomes a partner and ally of the US, corruption there ends, and democracy emerges just because Putin is gone? (6/x)
Or do you believe that Russia is a big country and the experience of the 1990s-2000s (democratization, collapse, retrenchment from international affairs) was an aberration from Russia’s general statist authoritarianism and grand strategy in conflict with the liberal West? (7/x)
I’m pretty sure Biden has a firm grasp on Russia and Putin. What the NSC wants to know is how the broad range of hard/soft military/financial/diplomatic policy tools available to them might play out. They need an expert who can help answer the “what next” question. (8/x)
What would be unhelpful and even dangerous for Biden/NSC is having an NSC director on any country/issue deciding policy on his or her own and shaping the information flow accordingly. Leave that to the legislative and think tank debates. (9/x)
Rojansky has such a broad array of people endorsing him because he’s helped foster a very vigorous debate on Russia featuring the entire range of views on the country: from destroy it to work with it. I have met Khodorkovsky, Sobchak, and RUS Amb. Antonov through Kennan! (10/x)
That’s why Kennan Institute is the standard-bearer for Russia-oriented think tanks: It fulfills its mission to Congress to provide the best and widest array information and expertise on Russia and its broader region. (11/x)
Anyways, debate is good and what US policy options for dealing with Russia *should* be vigorous! That's a sign of a healthy policy environment. Personal, defamatory attacks are not. (12/x)
Final note: a recent book by Rojansky and @mkimmage features interviews with, among others, the current National Security Advisor @JakeSullivan46 @JakeSullivan. Ostensibly a person who'd be interested in having a good working relationship with the Russia staff!
You can follow @yuvalweber.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: