The biggest challenge raised by the analysis in the article is the apparent complete lack of willingness of the Putin-Russian power elite to engage in hoped for manner. It would surely be to the benefit of Russia if it did. /2.
And, as the article convincingly sets out, there’s no (good) alternative for Russia. But it would be disastrous to Putin & his power grouping. Or, at least, they couldn’t have any confidence that it wouldn’t be. /3.
Given the dynamic that implies, the serious dilemma the US, Germany & the wider Euro-Atlantic Alliance face is whether pursuing a long, patient, persistent policy of many small steps - as set out in Amb von Studnitz’s article - will make the situation worse or better. /4.
Better, for the reasons set out by Amb von Studnitz.
Worse, if there’s no prospect of a good-faith, willing partner on the Russian side. /5.
In which case, the policy either:
(a) degenerates into a series of compromises, conscious or otherwise, which undermine the fundamentals of European peace & security. By definition, as they’re compromises with a regime whose goals and actions are incompatible with either; .../6.
... or
(b) simply kicks the can down the road, delaying an inevitable confrontation, potentially to a point where the Putin’s power elite have so strengthened themselves that the Alliance faces a much bigger and more dangerous task than now. /7.
Describing option (b) has terrifying echoes the 1910s & 1930s, all the more so given the huge scale of nuclear armament involved now, which was non-existent then. Terrifying or not, it’s an important part of our current reality. /8.
Short of an unexpected, dramatic improvement in circumstances - a positive transformation in Russia - a space avoiding the pitfalls of both (a) and (b) is, no doubt, where the Alliance would wish to be. /9.
Confronting, containing & disrupting the Putin power grouping, without compromise or potentially disastrous violence. And, drip by drip, creating change in Russia which, over time, leads it to the European future Amb von Studnitz describes.
Is that (still) possible? /10. End
Correction to tweet 2: “in hoped for manner” should read “in the hoped for manner”.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The sister of a colleague is having trouble with the truth, liars, lies, lying & falsehoods. She doesn’t know what they are. She has over a million Twitter followers & a huge media profile.
I worry for my colleague. Her sister. And the UK. I thought I might try to help.
A🧵/1.
The @OED will, I hope, forgive me for the inevitable process of simplification I’m about to apply to their learned entries. But I’ll try to avoid recreating the farrago of nonsense we’ve been seeing on the subject of truth & lying.
Let’s start with the meaning of “true”. /2.
This is quite easy really. For those not easily distracted by inverted pyramids of piffle.
It’s a perilous moment in the internal & external development of Russia.
Few understand Russia & Germany better than Ernst-Jörg von Studnitz (below with Mikhail Gorbachev).
In a recent article he says Nordstream 2 & old thinking must go. A 🧵/1.
Published originally in German (below) in the Redoute Papers series, Ambassador von Studnitz’s article is presented in English, in this short🧵. Each page accompanied by a one-tweet summary/ commentary by me. It carries sharp messages for German & other western policy-makers. /2.
Drawing on deep historical understanding & over half a century’s experience dealing with Russia, including as German ambassador in Moscow 1995 - 2002, Dr von Studnitz examines the Germany-Russia context facing a new Chancellor in Berlin this September. Old approaches are out. /3.
Margaret Thatcher gave the impartial, professional Civil Service a big shove down the slippery slope of politicisation & cronyism, decades ago. Previously, Harold Wilson had given it a modest kick. But it was her 1985 assault which set the stage for the current crisis.
Via Robert Armstrong, the then head of the Civil Service, she insisted the Crown was indistinguishable from the government of the day. So, service to the former was to be understood as service to the latter & vice versa. /2.
The actual “Armstrong Memorandum” (subsequently updated) was & is a deal more sophisticated than that. And, at one level, it’s a non-point. Ministers are set above civil servants. No one denies it. But, of course, it wasn’t meaningless. Far from it. The intent was clear. /3.
Claiming what you’ve messed up can’t have been you & it’s someone else’s business to clean up may (sometimes) be amusing or even charming in a three year old. Not a in national government, or .../2.
... among major media outlets & millions of adult voters;
(b) the fact two of the UK’s primary constituent parts (“home nations”) voted Remain, along with many of the UK’s main cities, including London, is highly significant. Because it’s one of the principal factors .../3.
It’s a pity to see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, someone who often has insight to offer, shredding his credibility in @Telegraph with near hysterical claims of a Brexit miracle.
One can only imagine the ... input received from on high which persuaded him to write it.
It’s notable that Mr Evans-Pritchard’s positive predictions for relatively higher UK than EU growth depend on the UK vaccination effort being more effective, sooner than the EU’s. And on large numbers of Hong Kong migrants settling in the UK. /2.
The former remains to be seen. There’s a lot of excitable betting on the UK hare beating the EU tortoise. Let’s wait a short while to find out. (Germany vaccinated 740,000 people yesterday).
The latter is, of course, every Brexit voter’s dream. /3.
It’s truly painful to watch James Dyson delivering a hodgepodge of pure nonsense about the benefits of Brexit. He founded & leads a successful business. Yet every “fact” is wrong.
All he has left is emotion.
He must know it.
What does it tell us that he says it anyway? A 🧵/1.
He may believe “independence of spirit” & personal determination explain his success. He has both, in quantities which set him apart from most people. Yet even if it were the reason (spoiler: it isn’t), compared to the UK his business is tiny, simple & profoundly different. /2.
Sir James’s personal qualities helped him through key challenges, as the individual central to Dyson Ltd. /3.