Emma Ashford
banner
emmamashford.bsky.social
Emma Ashford
@emmamashford.bsky.social
Senior Fellow at Stimson Center, Columnist at Foreign Policy, and Adjunct Prof at Georgetown CSS.

Research on US grand strategy and energy security. Working on a book about US foreign policy in a multipolar world.

All views mine!
And with the context, it's EXACTLY the same as the guy trying to explain why his ex-girlfriend's number is still in his phone contacts. 😂
March 26, 2025 at 1:50 PM
Mike Waltz denouncing Goldberg resembles nothing so much as a guy trying to frantically explain to his wife why his ex-girlfriend's number is still in his phone contacts. 😂
March 26, 2025 at 1:50 PM
What will you do when DOGE comes for you? In the new It's Debatable for @ForeignPolicy, @MatthewKroenig and I debate whether DOGE cuts to USIP, VOA, and USAID will impact US foreign policy for good or ill. 👇
March 21, 2025 at 3:09 PM
My @stimsoncenter.bsky.social colleague @evancooper.bsky.social has a new series out: Diplomacy Wins, focusing on the success stories of US diplomats.

Particularly as US soft power is being degraded, we must remember that diplomacy is a vital counterpart to military force in US foreign policy.
March 20, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Looks like the reaction to the blowout in the oval office has moved the needle a little on Americans' perceptions of Ukraine, but along highly partisan lines.
March 14, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Nordstream was always the best example of the divergence between Ukrainian interests and broader European ones -- and it will probably continue to be so if a peace is signed.
March 14, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Donald Trump is every undergrad who forgot to study for the midterm and only barely remembers the lecture, but now they’re on a roll.
March 14, 2025 at 2:40 AM
Wall Street Journal not mincing words this morning: "We said from the beginning that this North American trade war is the dumbest in history, and we were being kind."
March 13, 2025 at 3:28 AM
Never thought I'd see this sentence in Foreign Affairs, tbh.
March 10, 2025 at 8:05 PM
Looks like we have a finalized "rare minerals" deal with Ukraine. It doesn't seem to have changed much from the interim version. While it could have implications for reconstruction if fleshed out, as it stands, it's probably a bit of a nothingburger.
February 25, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Absolutely astounding the ways in which three decades of rhetoric about values has led many in the West to be literally unable to comprehend military power and why it matters.

"Right makes Might" does not seem like a viable strategy.
February 25, 2025 at 5:17 PM
They also throw in a couple of other asides about ways in which supporting Ukraine will either bolster the European or US economy, though I feel like both are shaky assumptions. Why would war-torn Ukraine magically become the engine of the EU? Why does military keynsianism magically work now?
January 10, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Anyway, the authors compare their hypothetical disastrous scenario to a hypothetical (but with no details!) world in which:
1) support to Ukraine expands
2) something happens
3) victory
January 10, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Though as Jen Kavanagh pointed out over on the bird site, the military requirements they're using to generate the budget are also largely pulled from thin air.
January 10, 2025 at 1:29 PM
The methodology is fairly sound in mathematical terms; they use AEI's budget generator, which is a great tool if you want to play around with what a military budget buys you in real terms.

So they plug in more of everything from personnel to weapons and get $160 bn/year.
January 10, 2025 at 1:29 PM
In just a few paragraphs, they assume that:

a) no other country steps up in US absence
b) Russia is able to conquer all of Ukraine
c) Russia avoids domestic insurgency in Ukraine
c) Russia absorbs the Belarusian military (why?)
d) Russia pressgangs Ukrainians into its military
January 10, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Things they don't tell you about being a parent #672: sitting up late trying to sew a toga for the Ides of March at school and then frantically googling "Roman hairstyles" at 7am.
March 15, 2024 at 12:16 PM
Revisiting what I wrote late last night and you can tell that the final stretch of the book drafting is going great.
March 12, 2024 at 12:16 PM
But ultimately, what is really needed now is some willingness to bend on the part of the White House. "As long as it takes" is not a viable strategy when you can't get congress on board with the spending needed. 6/x
February 6, 2024 at 2:55 PM
And we point out that even if congress decides against any further funding, a defensive war in Ukraine could be sustained by European countries with some effort. It's good to see the EU taking steps in that direction already; more is needed. 5/x
February 6, 2024 at 2:55 PM
A defensive war is also an easier political sell in Europe, where the Biden administration could argue that this is an effective way to future-proof against the now-obvious shifts in US domestic politics. 4/x
February 6, 2024 at 2:54 PM
We recommend the White House look for ways to engage congress on a smaller bill to supply Kyiv primarily with military aid/defensive capabilities. This would help to signal to Moscow the US will support Ukraine on the defense, even if not for a more expensive campaign to take back territory. 3/x
February 6, 2024 at 2:54 PM
As @kellygrieco.bsky.social and I argued a few weeks back in
@foreignaffairs.bsky.social Ukraine doesn't need $60+ billion from the US to wage a primarily defensive war. There are cheaper ways to do it - which are often more sustainable too. 2/x
February 6, 2024 at 2:53 PM
I'm really working hard to win friends in Washington and avoid controversy this week.

www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/how-...
January 11, 2024 at 2:03 PM
And then there is this piece, which I wish I could dismiss as fear-mongering, but I cannot.
January 2, 2024 at 4:28 PM