Lawrence Freedman
For his end of year audit Sam was able to assess his performance against some reasonably objective indicators – election outcomes and the mismatch between revenue and spending. My task is different as the wars I follow tend to drag on, without a definite conclusion against which to assess past analyses. In addition, because of the limits of the available information, especially when it comes to decision-making processes in Moscow and Kyiv, I must rely more than I would wish on inference and speculation. Accepting these limitations requires dealing more in possibilities than predictions. That is why I prefer explaining history to forecasting the future.
Yet questions about the future cannot be ducked. My aim is usually to consider available policy choices, for Western countries as well as the belligerents. That depends on identifying, and critiquing, assumptions about how conflicts are developing, and the key factors that are likely to most influence their outcomes. Over time this becomes less difficult because the approach of key decision-makers to their wars gets established and one can work out what they are trying to do even if it can be hard on a day-to-day basis to see how well they are succeeding. The country that is most difficult to get right is the US. Its leadership has been conflicted on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, in both cases knowing which side they most support, yet seeking to impose restrictions on their military operations to prevent damage to American interests. ‘What will Trump do?’ is now the starting point for the analysis of almost any geopolitical issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment