Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow: https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1348661851266158595

1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:

A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;

3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;

5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;

7. Against this, the effort will be to look beyond longstanding ties (US and NATO) and understanding how far to push new relationships with countries like India, Vietnam, South Korea;
8. All of this based on a prosperity project drawing upon Asia’s emerging energy trade formats.

Truss announcement that the UK intends to apply to CPTPP Is a clear indication of this;
9. Because of the above, capabilities is an issue only if the UK’s tilt is seen outside of its crucially networked nature. The UK will enable and convene;

10. This leads to the capabilities question. The IP tilt requires a maritime strategy upgraded to the 21sr cent: one in which maritime capabilities converge with cyber and space ones - the 3 essential moving parts of a future global commons. The recent MoD package does just that;

11. In all, the debate that @b_judah so nicely presented in his thread is also, in a way, a debate over the soul of the UK: a soul torned between the reluctance to leave the investment of the last century behind and the risks in the one needed for the next one to work;

12. Fwiw, what I think is admirable is the fact that this is truly a debate about the Indo-Pacific and not just about China. It is a positive debate. It is a shaping debate. One the rightfully sits in conversation with the equally important China policy one. The game is on.