I largely agree with your assessment that Quincy is controversial and dogmatic about restraint/ non-intervention.
That being said, they are a valuable source of disagreement in the wider foreign policy community, and doing something very neglected (researching & advocating for restraint/non-intervention).
I know Quincy staff disagree with each other, coming from libertarian, leftist, realist perspectives. So it is troubling that Cirincione departed because that difference in perspective is needed. Although I do suspect Parsi is describing things accurately when he says Cirincione left because he wanted the Institute to adopt his position in the Russian-initiated war on Ukraine.
Quincy are exploring a controversial analysis in this current conflict in Russia-Ukraine, to identify if Russia’s invasion could have been avoided in the 1st place (e.g. by bringing Russia into NATO way back when they were wanting to join), and advocating Ukraine and Russia compromise to reduce casualties (to be fair, it’s reported the White House has also urged Ukraine to make compromises at times). Whilst controversial, I do think this is worthwhile, and I myself might disagree (and I believe they all disagree amongst themselves), I want to see this research/advocacy explored and debated. I had been nervous when the invasion started that Quincy’s work could dip into Kremlin-apologetics, but they have seemed to steer away from that, and have nuanced perspectives.
Their work on the Iran Nuclear Deal, the conflict in Yemen, is far less controversial, and promising.
I find value in them being a counterbalance to the more hawkish think tanks which are much better resourced.
On the 80K job board, you have a few institutions (well respected and worthwhile no doubt) like CSIS & RAND, which are more interventionist and/or funded by arms manufacturers (even RAND is indirectly funded by the grants it receives from AEI), so I do worry that there is a systemic bias for interventionist views.
I hope people don’t write-off Quincy’s work or other anti-interventionist/restraint-focused work entirely, but certainly agree, take it with a grain of salt. I certainly do.
I largely agree with your assessment that Quincy is controversial and dogmatic about restraint/ non-intervention.
That being said, they are a valuable source of disagreement in the wider foreign policy community, and doing something very neglected (researching & advocating for restraint/non-intervention).
I know Quincy staff disagree with each other, coming from libertarian, leftist, realist perspectives. So it is troubling that Cirincione departed because that difference in perspective is needed. Although I do suspect Parsi is describing things accurately when he says Cirincione left because he wanted the Institute to adopt his position in the Russian-initiated war on Ukraine.
Quincy are exploring a controversial analysis in this current conflict in Russia-Ukraine, to identify if Russia’s invasion could have been avoided in the 1st place (e.g. by bringing Russia into NATO way back when they were wanting to join), and advocating Ukraine and Russia compromise to reduce casualties (to be fair, it’s reported the White House has also urged Ukraine to make compromises at times). Whilst controversial, I do think this is worthwhile, and I myself might disagree (and I believe they all disagree amongst themselves), I want to see this research/advocacy explored and debated. I had been nervous when the invasion started that Quincy’s work could dip into Kremlin-apologetics, but they have seemed to steer away from that, and have nuanced perspectives.
Their work on the Iran Nuclear Deal, the conflict in Yemen, is far less controversial, and promising.
I find value in them being a counterbalance to the more hawkish think tanks which are much better resourced.
On the 80K job board, you have a few institutions (well respected and worthwhile no doubt) like CSIS & RAND, which are more interventionist and/or funded by arms manufacturers (even RAND is indirectly funded by the grants it receives from AEI), so I do worry that there is a systemic bias for interventionist views.
I hope people don’t write-off Quincy’s work or other anti-interventionist/restraint-focused work entirely, but certainly agree, take it with a grain of salt. I certainly do.