Russian action to take eastern Ukraine would satisfy the need to avoid climbdown, strengthen control of the territory, and most importantly raise stakes against NATO expansion. Classic brinkmanship: by not provoking a maximal response Putin expands margin for future action.
https://twitter.com/Panda_Chronicle/status/1484644678670725132
Whether this actually happens is anyone's guess, never speculate, but it demonstrates that the "minor incursion" concept is the most dangerous. Full invasion justifies NATO expansion/tough response, while partial action gives Biden the way out he seems to want.
Standing firm isn't the same as bellicosity, something the US seems to have forgotten.
This is the toxic legacy of the absurd unthinking pacifism that did the rounds on the left in the first decade of this century. Shifts of public opinion provoke the danger of weak leaders.
This is the toxic legacy of the absurd unthinking pacifism that did the rounds on the left in the first decade of this century. Shifts of public opinion provoke the danger of weak leaders.
European leaders need to drive home to the US the knock-on effects of head burial in the sand. And anyone of the UK left who misses the link between instability, refugees, and rightwing populism shouldn't do politics.
Hobson's choices abound, but Putin does understand strength.
Hobson's choices abound, but Putin does understand strength.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
