West should set its own red lines, not just accept Putin’s, argues veteran diplomat
West should set its own red lines, not just accept Putin’s, argues veteran diplomat
Former German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger says Western leaders should be making more threats and be willing to follow them through.
Former German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger says Western leaders should be making more threats and be willing to follow them through.
The West should spend less time fretting about Russian President Vladimir Putin's red lines and set its own, says veteran German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger.
“Russia keeps saying, if you do this, if you cross this or that red line, we might escalate,” said the 78-year-old onetime chairman of the Munich Security Conference. “Why don't we turn this thing around and say to them: ‘We have lines and if you bomb one more civilian building, then you shouldn't be surprised if, say, we deliver Taurus cruise missiles or America allows Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia’?”
That way the onus will be on Moscow to decide whether to cross the red lines — or face the consequences.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm no "veteran diplomat" but in my experience it is only the people without real power who make threats. When you have power, you don't need to make threats. You just respond to events with whatever proportionate response is necessary and within your capability. You don't need to provide a preview of what those responses will be.
Setting "red lines" looks to me like weakness because it is essentially a plea to the other side not to do those things that you don't want them to do, and it invites them to push up to those red lines, do anything but, and test their boundaries to test your commitment to them.
Additionally, even if it didn't look weak, setting an established red line means Russia can snuggle right up to the line.
The us, and perhaps the west in general, hasn't really used red lines since Obama threatened Syria if they used chemical weapons and then didn't follow through.
I disagree. Scaled down to small and harmless it's like handling kids. You explain what you don't want them to do and what happens/you're going to do if they continue. Now it's crucial you go through with what you threatened them with.
If you either don't deliver on the "threat" or don't act as you said you would, guess what happens? They just continue or it even gets worse.
Of course it's more delicate/difficult when handling with powerful and intelligent adults but it's at least similar. Not issuing threats is just not communicating. If you then just act (violently), things are more likely to escalate.
Edit: or back to the kids analogy: don't tell them anything but smack them once they went too far: may help in that instance but they'll just learn to better avoid you and do shit behind your back.
If you think that international diplomacy between nation states is like handling kids then you're not a veteran diplomat either.