After the Putin-Biden virtual summit, what next? In our new @CrisisGroup briefing, we lay out what has led up to the military buildup we see today, and argue that a sustainable solution is going to require a lot more talking 1/11 crisisgroup.org/europe-central…
Fundamentally, we think the US approach evidenced yesterday is on the right track--make clear to Russia that the repercussions of escalated aggression will be met with a lot of things they don't want, including sanctions and a continued military buildup. 2/11
But it's crucial to be specific, both about threats that Western states will carry out, and less controllable repercussions if the escalation spiral gets worse. NATO military involvement is a bad idea. But one can still spin out a scary story for how it might come to pass. 3/11
It is no less critical that everyone acknowledge, again as reflected in coverage of yesterday's meeting, that the situation today reflects a broken European security system. Deterrence alone won't fix it. 4/11
This means, yes, deals with Russia. Deals that prevent, rather than require military buildups. Deals that make escalation harder. Mutual commitments to avoid things that would lead to escalation. Toned down rhetoric. 5/11
But the Russians/Westerners (choose one depending on your alignment) don't stick to their commitments! Well, then, build that into the deal. Legally binding for states means "thing states will stick to" so incentives to abide must be higher than those to renege. 6/11
One way to do that is make deals explicitly reversible if the other party doesn't stick to its word. 7/11
What kind of deals? Well, perhaps an expansion of the tired NATO-Russia Founding Act that prohibits permanent stationing of substantial (and let's define that, btw) combat forces not just on territories of new allies, but of non-aligned OSCE member states. 8/11
Certainly limits on force deployments and exercises. Calm things down in the Black Sea, to say the least. But CFE talks are long-dead, you say. Yeah. And resuscitation is crucial, or more people will likely die. 9/11
But progress on all of this is conditional on progress towards peace in Ukraine. Yes, on the basis of Minsk, for all its faults. Because Ukraine and European security are deeply intertwined. 10/11
This isn't everything, read the full briefing for more. We're looking forward to the conversation. @OlegIgnatov18@AdeCar 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You may not like where @scharap ends up in yesterday's @politico piece, but instead of getting mad at Sam Charap, ask yourself what it would take to craft a more viable policy. politico.com/news/magazine/… 🧵1/11
He's arguing that since Western states aren't going to fight for Ukraine, and Russia clearly, evidently, will, the current path leads to another serious escalation, in which more Ukrainians (& Russians) die, followed by an even worse status quo than today's. 2/11
Western states have to date relied on strategic ambiguity, hoping symbolic assistance of various sorts (at this point, Ukrainians are pretty good at fighting, & they've long been good at building weapons), sanctions, & strong words of support will make Russia think twice 3/11
Thread: Reading the memorandum of the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy, I have thoughts 1/14
Zelenskyy was well-briefed for this discussion, and his marching orders were to get on Trump’s good side. 2/14
If Ukraine loses the United States as a strong backer, its negotiating position with Russia is much weaker, no matter what the Europeans do. This isn’t just about a particular aid package 3/14