Davis Ellison
@davisellison.bsky.social
Writer on Civil-Military Relations - NATO - Political History - Central and Eastern Europe
PhD from King’s College London Department of War Studies
Check out my podcast and substack Official Positions!
Big into X-Files and Twin Peaks references 🛸🦉☕️
PhD from King’s College London Department of War Studies
Check out my podcast and substack Official Positions!
Big into X-Files and Twin Peaks references 🛸🦉☕️
Same, they just love being in the good graces too much
November 2, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Same, they just love being in the good graces too much
Super important topic, would love to hear the briefing sometime! And thanks for sharing the thesis!
October 15, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Super important topic, would love to hear the briefing sometime! And thanks for sharing the thesis!
Certainly a good time to perfect it!
September 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Certainly a good time to perfect it!
How are other people rationalising all of this? Genuinely curious. #CivMilSky #PoliSciSky
September 1, 2025 at 9:35 AM
How are other people rationalising all of this? Genuinely curious. #CivMilSky #PoliSciSky
Trying to write something about European foreign policy just feels kind of…..pointless I guess?
Like the centre node of knowledge and political capital from the last decades is just full blown autocratic. Hell no I’m not going to some conference in D.C. or LA now.
Like the centre node of knowledge and political capital from the last decades is just full blown autocratic. Hell no I’m not going to some conference in D.C. or LA now.
September 1, 2025 at 9:35 AM
Trying to write something about European foreign policy just feels kind of…..pointless I guess?
Like the centre node of knowledge and political capital from the last decades is just full blown autocratic. Hell no I’m not going to some conference in D.C. or LA now.
Like the centre node of knowledge and political capital from the last decades is just full blown autocratic. Hell no I’m not going to some conference in D.C. or LA now.
Like, the entire intellectual infrastructure that this is work is designed to feed into is either co-opted, lost its funding, or progressive and being targeted.
Do people know that all this work doesn’t lead to a State policy planning job in a Democratic administration anymore?
Do people know that all this work doesn’t lead to a State policy planning job in a Democratic administration anymore?
September 1, 2025 at 9:35 AM
Like, the entire intellectual infrastructure that this is work is designed to feed into is either co-opted, lost its funding, or progressive and being targeted.
Do people know that all this work doesn’t lead to a State policy planning job in a Democratic administration anymore?
Do people know that all this work doesn’t lead to a State policy planning job in a Democratic administration anymore?
For anyone who wants a lot more on this era, feel free to check out my open-access PhD thesis (especially chapter 6) kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/st...
Alliance Politics: Revisiting NATO’s History Through Civil-Military Relations
kclpure.kcl.ac.uk
August 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
For anyone who wants a lot more on this era, feel free to check out my open-access PhD thesis (especially chapter 6) kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/st...
SO, while we often bring up the Article 5 and 9/11 connection in today's discussion, it needs way more context about how all of that happened in D.C. and Brussels. It was not a moment of bright, transatlantic unity, but more a tepidly welcomed NATO initiative that many in D.C. disliked in practice.
August 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
SO, while we often bring up the Article 5 and 9/11 connection in today's discussion, it needs way more context about how all of that happened in D.C. and Brussels. It was not a moment of bright, transatlantic unity, but more a tepidly welcomed NATO initiative that many in D.C. disliked in practice.
U.S. miltiary officials only saw NATO's benefit in Afghanistan from a burden-sharing perspective, in that NATO would take on Afghanistan while the U.S. shifted troops and attention to Iraq. General John Abizaid was explicit about this when NATO took over ISAF in 2003.
August 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
U.S. miltiary officials only saw NATO's benefit in Afghanistan from a burden-sharing perspective, in that NATO would take on Afghanistan while the U.S. shifted troops and attention to Iraq. General John Abizaid was explicit about this when NATO took over ISAF in 2003.
Rumsfeld especially did not want any NATO procedures tying U.S. hands in their aggressive counter-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan (which of course went great for Afghans!)
August 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
Rumsfeld especially did not want any NATO procedures tying U.S. hands in their aggressive counter-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan (which of course went great for Afghans!)
If anything, the U.S. administration actively did not want NATO involved. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld was himself incredibly derisive of NATO, and hated it's 'war by committee' style of operation seen in BiH and Kosovo.
August 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
If anything, the U.S. administration actively did not want NATO involved. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld was himself incredibly derisive of NATO, and hated it's 'war by committee' style of operation seen in BiH and Kosovo.
Robertson is well-documented as being very concerned about NATO's post-Cold War relevance, and also quite eager to show off his 'special relationship' bona fides in D.C. (he even wanted NATO to go into Iraq!)
August 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
Robertson is well-documented as being very concerned about NATO's post-Cold War relevance, and also quite eager to show off his 'special relationship' bona fides in D.C. (he even wanted NATO to go into Iraq!)