On 9 February @faznet published a letter from Dr Ernst-Jörg von Studnitz, former German ambassador in Moscow, former Chair of the German-Russian Forum, about protecting Ukraine’s security.
I recommend it to all, & have prepared an English translation, reproduced in this 🧵/1.
The Importance of Protecting Ukraine
Widespread concern about a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine raises the question of whether repeated Russian assurances that a military incursion is not intended should in fact be accepted. /2.
Russian military calculations regarding an intervention in Ukraine may well be going in a different direction.
There are historical examples which can be a guide to such military action. /3.
Worthy of note are the Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and in Afghanistan in 1979. In both cases, Soviet power was called upon by a clique previously placed in power by the Soviets to help secure overthrow in their country. /4.
Soviet politicians then, as possibly Russian politicians today, can claim they did not commit aggression against a neighbouring country, but only rushed to the aid of a government in need, as they did recently in Kazakhstan. /5.
As Putin seems to be implying, the call for help can be provoked using military-technical means. /6.
What chaos would ensue in Ukraine if, with a massive preceding cyber attack, which cannot of course be attributed to the Russian government, all communication in the country were to be paralysed. /7.
In this confusion, the required call for help to the Russian neighbours would be issued from obscure sources. And Russia stands ready to invade with overwhelming military force all around Ukraine. /8.
The Soviet army had such a deployment pattern before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Armies were available in East Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Hungary. They were all sent in. That is why the Russian armed forces are deployed today. /9.
What's more, before the invasion of Czechoslovakia, all the troops eventually deployed had been on manoeuvres for months previously. How similar the pictures appear, when you look at the situation in respect of Ukraine today. /10.
The danger is a staged putsch, not an invasion which could be directly defined as “aggression”.
This raises the question of how both Ukraine and the West should react to this possible scenario. /11.
It is of utmost importance to fend off a massive cyber attack with all possible means. On this, even Germany, which is so incredibly reluctant to provide military support, can provide the greatest possible help. /12.
The preparations for this must start immediately and they do not conflict with any NATO commitments not to expand its potential eastward. /13.
It is of similar importance that the diplomatic missions of Western states in Ukraine are operating at full capacity so that the course of events can be closely followed. The announced withdrawal of diplomatic personnel from Kyiv sends absolutely the wrong signal. /13.
Protecting Ukraine from a repeat of Soviet interventions in support of purported Russian security interests is of overriding significance, for maintaining the peaceful order established in Europe in the second half of the 20th century.
Dr Ernst-Jörg von Studnitz /14. End
P.S. If you’ve read this far, you may also be interested in this related 🧵 from a year ago, which is of current relevance👇
If the US is anything other than fully committed, at great scale and in the pre-eminent leadership role, in NATO, Europe, the US and the world face disaster.
Bookmark that. /1.
More importantly, stop this madness.
There isn’t a way out of this, any more than there is a way of avoiding gravity on the surface of the Earth.
Cutting down US military presence in Europe has been a huge mistake. Successive US administrations are guilty. /2.
That needs to be reversed. It’s a large part of the reason for the mess we’re in. Globally, as well as in Europe.
Waiting a couple of years into a world war before committing to do anything about it is a stupendously bad idea, and grotesquely costly in lives and treasure. /3.
Donald Trump saying “Ukraine is finished” once again, starkly, highlights the question of what the world’s first & only (with the possible exception of Britain), & still remaining, hyper power would do geopolitically under his leadership.
But it isn’t just about Trump.
A 🧵/1.
I’ll be unashamedly Eurocentric.
There’s a broader & deeper story, of course. But Europe is a vital part of it.
The decision the USA has to make, as it did in the 1940s, & repeatedly at intervals after that, is whether it cares about Europe, & if so how much of it, & why. /2.
Does that include all of western Europe? Does it extend to central Europe? And eastern Europe? If so, should Ukraine be part of what the USA cares about (in the 40s that didn’t really play a role, given Ukraine’s status within the USSR)? And if so, how much of Ukraine? /3.
Brexit ripped us out of our $19 trillion GDP domestic market & reduced us to one a 6th of it, thumped our economy, fractured the UK, threw our governance into chaos, & generated perilous geopolitical effects.
And (if you mean it seriously) wildly naive about what actually takes place, legally (although you’d say “in my opinion this is unconstitutional”: good luck!) in the USA.
Still, if we just look at England/UK: yes, there are many concerns. /1.
I never said or, I hope, implied (to a fair, reasonable reader) that there weren’t.
For example (not the subject of my already long 🧵which focused on the way criminal incitement & freedom of expression relate) I personally deeply dislike revocation of citizenship. /2.
But you know that’s a thing in the USA as well, including for natural born citizens.
Involuntary self-revocation (in the guise of “voluntary relinquishment”) of citizenship sounds about as Kafkaesque as it gets.
But there it is, lurking malignantly in the Land of the Free. /3.
Twitter’s full of people trumpeting near zero understanding of English law or of the convictions in respect of the violence of the last 10 days or so.
Nor does the US 1st Amendment mean what many (often Americans) seem to think.
Frustrated? Maybe this will be some use.
A🧵/1.
“Incitement” was an offence under English common law pretty much forever.
In 2008 the Serious Crime Act 2007 replaced common law “incitement” with statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime.
Incitement in respect of specific statutory offences remains. /2.
“Assisting” means roughly what you probably think it does. But, for clarity, it doesn’t require direct presence at the scene of the crime being “assisted”, or actions which are themselves part of that crime: if they assist the commission of it, that’s a criminal act itself. /3.