πͺπΊ This is the sort of 'strategic autonomy' Macron (and many in Brussels) want: deciding European issues to the exclusion of the US. It's exactly what they *should* be doing if that's what they want.
π·πΊ If not handled carefully, it might...2/n
...allow Russia to triangulate and weaken everybody's negotiating position.
πͺπΊ It must have infuriated the EU that the US was deciding on the affairs of the EU's near abroad but excluding Brussels, Paris and Berlin.
πͺπΊ This is likely to help France cleave closer to Germany...3/n
...which is a key strategic aim. However, it is also likely to push the Poles farther away.
πΊπΈ If Washington hasn't been consulted, you'd have to imagine they'd be furious with Macron. Here they are playing hardball, and Le Petit Napoleon saunters up and undercuts them...4/n
πΊπΈ The US has always viewed the EU favourably as a means to guarantee stability and liberalism in an area of key strategic interest to the US. How long would that last in an age of EU 'strategic independence'? Probably at least while the China threat...5/n
...remains. But then?
π¬π§ Might all this help Britain?
That's all top of the head stuff. Random thoughts. We don't know the details of Macron's offer, whether he has run it past Washington, and certainly not whether talks would be fruitful.
Ideas and contributions welcome.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Saturday Night Space: the unfolding Russo-Ukraine situation.
πGrand strategy
π·πΊπΊπ¦What forces are at play?
πΊπΈCan US negotiators strike a deal?
πͺπΊWhat of Macron's EU offer?
π¬π§What are Britain's interests?
People might also like to take ten minutes to listen to the below podcast, which offers an insight into Russia's vulnerability to sanctions, and thus Western leverage.
Is sending arms to Ukraine a move of deep geostrategic wisdom by the Foreign Office? A THREAD mostly aimed at @JezzaCorncob and @DominicLawson.
If the EU could ever get its act together and form a unified military, it would pose an existential risk to Britain. Such an... 1/n
...armed force is highly unlikely, given the political and national interests involved. However, if it *did* happen, and the UK was on the outside, British trade and even regulation would ultimately continue at the grace of the EU, and the UK would have to maintain friendly...2/n
...relations with the EU on EU terms. It is therefore crucial (from a realpolitik perspective) that the UK does not allow this to happen. The traditional means for this has been to sow discord and act as a swing power to balance European powers against eachother...3/n
In his 2016 documentary film, HyperNormalisation, Adam Curtis explains that by the 1980s, Soviet leaders had realised that their vision for a socialist society had failed. They could not predict accurately and could not...1/n
...micromanage everything. However, they were so involved the system they had built that they could not think of any alternatives. So instead, they pretended that things were getting better as they traveled along the road to a socialist utopia. Aleksi Yurchak...2/n
...the Leningrad-born professor of anthropology at Berkeley, explained what it was like to live through this period in his book, 'Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation'. He wrote that the citizenry knew the leaders were lying; however, the...3/n
Babies, I once heard a psychologist say half in jest, are all sociopaths. They think the world revolves around them, have no idea their actions can hurt others, and manipulate emotions to get their way. They must be socialised out of this, and crucially told 'No': The world....
...does not revolve around them, they cannot always get what they want, and they must learn to consider the needs, wants and feelings of others. Parents who do not do this find their lives revolving around little tyrants, who throw tantrums every time something doesn't go...
...their way, and show little gratitude when things do. As a society, we have raised a generation in which about 25% (about half of those who attend university) are babyish, sociopathic tyrants. I am afraid they are going to have to be told No very firmly indeed. This...
+++A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TO PROVE THAT A VOTE FOR A SMALL PARTY ISN'T WASTED+++
Let's imagine an election in which the public is so angry with the government, and so disillusioned with the opposition's ability to do anything different, that hardly anybody bothers...1/n
...voting. In fact, in our hypothetical election, only the million and a half or so people who are actually members of a political party vote. The election's turnout is therefore only ~3%. Whoever won would have no legitimacy and couldn't claim a democratic mandate. But... 2/n
...more importantly, such a low turnout -- nothing less than a voters' strike -- would be a message that hit Whitehall and Westminster like a thunder clap. Peter Hitchens has often made this point. He has argued that all ballot papers should have a 'none of the above'...3/n
We now know that because COVID spreads through the air rather than by fomites, good ventilation is crucial indoors in the winter. We knew this a year ago. Why don't we now have units for hospitals, schools and hospitals that circulate air and pass it through sterilising UV light?
Why have we not done more to investigate ongoing indoor disinfection with Far UV light? And why don't we have therapeutic treatments to roll out? We developed vaccines in the blink of an eye. Then stopped. If the government thinks this is important enough to abrogate freedoms...
...and shutter the economy, why has it not built on the success of the vaccine programme to develop ways to mitigate the spread and reduce the CFR? We *knew* COVID would be endemic. We *knew* there would be new variants. We've had plenty of time to prepare. It's gross malfeasance