Firing Line debate - "The US should prioritize Taiwan over Ukraine"

Firing Line debate between Marathon Initiative Founder and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Bridge Colby, and Richard Levin Professor of History and Global Affairs Timothy Snyder.
March 6, 2024, 4:30 pm
WLH 119
100 Wall St,
New Haven, CT

[@benisboop]

Professor Snyder's answer to the NATO enlargement question is interesting in that he basically argues the opposite of the claim he tries to debunk, which itself is problematic. Sure NATO enlarged because of the "fears and lived experiences" of the Eastern Flank states, but this is not the full picture. To say that would be to say that effectively the existing member states had no choice whether or not to admit them into NATO. This is ironic in that the argument that Mr. Snyder seeks to disprove holds that NATO was the proactive actor in the process of enlargement, stripping the eastern flank states of autonomy. The reality is, both sides collaborated to bring about this enlargement.

[@TRazielT]

I think his point, and rightly so, was that the question referred to NATO having an active enlargement policy to threaten russia, similar to how the russian propaganda puts it. Obviously putin and everyone believing in the russian propaganda thinks of it in this way, but just putting the question as such feeds into that logic.

[@vladakovbasa8329]

Mr. Colby constantly says how wrong Professor Snyder is, but Professor Snyder is all the time saying that Colby is right, and threats are real and coalitions are the solutions, but he sees a different approach to it, the one that is based on the historical similarities. And after so many different talks of Professor Snyder I retrospectively watched after russian invasion, it does look like we need to pay attention this time...History doesn't repeat, but it does instruct indeed

[@dss2mtm]

And the Baltics did not 'force' their membership as NATO could have rejected them. Maybe morally they could not be turned down so in that sense NATO could not object but still the word forced takes away all NATO agency.

[@dss2mtm]

Very audacious of professor Snyder to say that NATO is not expansionist when NATO has an official 'open door' policy. Why is the door left open if not to encourage entrance by those so intetested. Sure maybe noones interested and NATO stays the same size as its not actively asimulating counties or blackmailing membership. Its all voluntary. In that sense 'expansion' can seem too agressive a word and Professor Snyder correct. But such voluntary open door policy is there to precisely entice the interested. When the door could be closed. And It's not closed for a reason: to allow potential expansion by those so interested in joining. I get what Professor Snyder is saying but it's niave to think NATO wasnt deliberately 'passive agressive' by leaving its door wide open to those it knew wanted very much to join. Such a mutal policy was very democratic of NATO, promoting its expansion eastwards as the anticipated and planned outcome.

[@vladakovbasa8329]

I like the fact that Professor Snyder does mention that Taiwan want Ukraine to be prioritised. I had this feeling for a long time, talking to my local friends, a lot of the ppl think that if Ukraine wins - China won't attack