Nigel raises good points here, but this is fundamentally a Western-centric view of the world which does not obtain, placing tremendous faith into Western coercive credibility over Ukraine. I respectfully differ, and so this is a brief response thread. 1/
https://twitter.com/Nigelgd1/status/1378312569753059328
Leaders go to war because they feel they must use force to achieve political objectives, not because they perceived a lack of Western political will somewhere. Calling Zelensky with rhetorical expressions of support is hardly an impressive deterrent. 2/
Coercive diplomacy is seeking a change in another state's behavior backed by the threat of force. Russia seeks a change in Ukraine’s position on Minsk, and that of Kyiv’s Western partners. It may work, or it may not work, but one can clearly see why they would attempt it. 3/
Finally, wars have political causes. Russia could try compelling Kyiv into a different political settlement. But, Minsk II is already highly favorable to Moscow as a framework. Throwing it out at great cost, in return for uncertain gains, seems an unlikely course of action.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
