The fight of the ruling classes against dissent and democracy has reached a new stage.
In Belarus the reason is obvious, but it seems as if the Kremlin also sees the protest as a glimpse into a potential future and is hardening its attitude towards dissent.
As a consequence, the empire is likely to become more fragile.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The evidence presented here is more consistent with another interpretation: that Russia was hoping to force Ukraine into a settled surrender through the talks. They knew that the West would not sign anything that entailed the obligation to go to war with Russia.
Russia since 2014 has used both, war and talks, to achieve what it wants, the full submission of Ukraine. There's nothing new with this. Talks are just another tactic to achieve the overall goal, the elimination of Ukraine as an independent state and as a nation.
There are rumors that the US is trying to push a settlement between Russia and Ukraine.
Very unlikely that this works even temporarily.
But in any case, European military support for Ukraine must massively grow. Only way to contain and deter Russia is military counter-pressure.
It would be naive, or suicidal, to think that Russia would honor any agreement; the only borders it doesn't cross are borders that are well protected -- through credible deterrence. In order to get there, Europeans must invest quickly and massively in Ukraine's armed forces.
The question -- if those rumors are true and if Putin thinks a deal with Biden is better than one potentially with Trump (very big if) -- would not be deal OR deterrence through military strength. The latter will always be essential.
We're dealing with the wrong historical analogy. The threat for Europe is not to slip involuntarily into a world war as in 1914, a fashionable analogy since 2014 when everybody had read books about 1914 and compared it to the dispute with Russia over Crimea and Donbas.
This analogy has assumed that nobody wants a real war, which made preventing misunderstandings the key challenge.
Since early 2021/22 however we know a) that Russia does not accept Ukrainian statehood, b) that it is ready for a major confrontation with the West, c) that it is ready to wage major wars, d) that the ultimate goal is to drive the US out of Europe and to dominate Eurasia.
The question Russia is putting to Europe: are you willing to defend the liberal, free and open order you have been provided with by the US after WWII (Western Europe) and after the Cold War (Central Europe)?
For decades, all Europeans had to do was to broadly follow the America lead, and in return they were provided with a regional (European) and global order that gave them more freedom, prosperity and security than ever in their history.
For the US, since the end of the Cold War to maintain this order was very cheap. Yet instead of integrating, Russia and China now are challenging this order, which makes its maintenance far more costly. The US won't do it (largely) alone anymore.
Jein. Schröder ist nicht einfach "Gaslobbyist", das ist eine Verharmlosung, als ginge es einfach nur um wirtschaftliche Interessen. Er arbeitet für geopolitische Kreml-Interessen: Gas ist für Putin nicht nur wirtschaftliches Gut, sondern auch Waffe im Kampf um Dominanz.
Wir wissen, dass Schröder sehr aktiv in Europa und vor allem Deutschland dafür gearbeitet hat, die Nord Stream 2-Pipeline durchzusetzen.
Anfang 2016, als noch nicht ganz klar, ob Merkel grünes Licht geben würde, sagte mir der Vertreter eines Wirtschaftsverbandes: Nord Stream 2 wird gebaut, Gerhard Schröder hat es mir gesagt.
Ob Scholz Mützenich grünes Licht für den "Einfrieren"-Versuchsballon gegeben hat oder nicht ist letzten Endes zweitrangig. Scholz könnte die Führungsposition ausfüllen, indem er öffentlich sichtbar an einer Ukraine-Strategie arbeitet und das auch immer wieder mitteilt.
Er tut dies nicht, sondern verlässt sich auf wenige Formeln, die er vor zwei Jahren entwickelt hat, weitgehend, indem er an amerikanischen strategische Leitplanken orientiert hat.
Das Führungsvakuum wird dann eben von anderen gefüllt, ob mit oder ohne Billigung des Kanzlers.