The US press this w/e is full of well sourced briefing about the scale of Putin's threatened invasion of Ukraine. What do we learn? Thread: 1/ from WaPo that the Pentagon sees 100+ battalion equivalents attacking on multiple fronts ... 
2/ ... that State Dept has understood Putin's red lines are advancing ... to start heaving NATO-friendly countries in Nordics/Balkans...
3/ ... and that this is about a strategic outcome for VVP, not just another demonstration of power... and that USA is short of options. It's a kind of "wake up weekend" for US political pundits...
4/ Now to the reality. The best case sequence for NATO if Russia invades Ukraine is that the arms/ expertise already supplied blunt the attack, while EU unites around massive sanctions, and Putin does not risk cutting off gas supplies to Central Europe in response. But...unlikely
5/ Worser scenario: European Union won't agree game changing sanctions and/or Putin plunges half of EU into energy insecurity. At this point USA cuts it's losses and accepts Putin's demand for soft federation/ disarmed neutrality for UE... please note:
6/ There is no realistic scenario in which NATO defends Ukraine. I've explained why here. Defence cuts, Brexit, Orban, gas blackmail and disinfo have "shaped the battlefield" - there will be no consent for it, even in USA socialeurope.eu/putin-pugilism…
7/ The question is do Western electorates have the stomach for a rules-based order, and the actions needed to sustain it? They did not faced with Abyssinia, Spain, Munich in 30s...
8/ The most strategic thing Europe could do right now is commit to a common energy security policy aimed at weaning off Russian gas over next 10 years, which means state-backed investment in renewables and new nuclear. U.K. could have led, had we not swallowed Brexit...
9/ And if @SecBlinken wants to demonstrate some statecraft: aggressively isolate Orban, and any other EU govt that will not commit to sanctions in the face of RU wiping out UA sovereignty...
10/ and while we're on the subject - Labour was admirably clear in response to the IR - that Johnson's "global Britain" bullshit is a distraction from the emerging threat - this from @JohnHealey_MP RUSI speech
11/ as it's a slow weekend I'm sure we will soon get a story briefed that "the paras are on standby to deploy to Kiev" etc etc ... but there is no consent for U.K. military action in defence of Ukraine. You would have had to start in 2013 and build cross party consensus ...
12/ and then the British PM would probably not have called for Trump to get the Nobel Peace prize, and not cut the army, and not created a £13bn defence procurement black hole, and not taken donations from, we, Russians.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
