Samuel Charap Profile picture
Feb 21 55 tweets 3 min read
Putin's address starting. Thread.
"Ukraine is an inseparable part of our cultural space"
Uh oh, he's going deep into history.
"today's ukraine was totally and completely formed by Russia"
[historical narrative about how the Soviets were "guilty" for the creation of today's Ukraine.]
1924 Soviet constitution... blah blah blah
"why were all these authorities delegated to national republics?"
"why did we have to give these republics so much authority"? because the bolsheviks needed to hang on to power "at any price"
Leninist pseudo-federalist construction of the USSR was "worse than a mistake".
"we can call it Lenin's Ukraine"
"you want decommunization, we're all for it" [but we'll show you what it really means]
he is noting that actually the republics weren't given any real authority in the USSR...
called the USSR "totalitarian", by the way
the leaders of the CPSU thought they had it all figured out, but nationalism hadn't disappeared... it was just waiting for its moment.
[blaming CPSU groups for re-igniting nationalism in the late 1980s]
[critique of USSR national policy document from 1989 that nominally gave the republics more authority, including "citizenship"]
"two years before the Soviet collapse, its fate was sealed... the collapse was a function of CPSU leaderships' mistakes" "the collapse of the USSR is on their conscience"
But Russia recognized the new borders after 1991...
[Russia respected UA territorial integrity, gave tens of USD billions in energy subsidies]
[Russia took on all USSR debts... the new independent states were supposed to give up their claims on Soviet property abroad... Ukraine never ratified the agreement...]
"Ukraine was constructed as an anti-Russia... "
condemnation of Ukraine's entire post-Soviet political existence... oligarchs running the country, geopolitical triangulation, etc.
he's condemning Ukrainian pro-Russian politicians for betraying their voters
elections are merely a means of redistributing power among clans
we're up to 2014 now, with allegations of Western funding of radicals leading to... you guessed it: a "coup"
allegations of a wave of "pogroms" following maidan....
"we know the names of those guilty for the Odessa trade union house fire and we'll track them down"
This is really going on forever. he's describing an alleged post-maidan nationwide economic and social collapse.... down to details like Yuzhmash's fate.
... allegations that the US Embassy in Kyiv created and financed NABU, SAP, etc. "reduced ukraine to a colony with a marionette regime"
And now we have the usual denunciation of Ukraine's laws on language and education...
[now expressing disbelief that the RNBO unilaterally shut down TV stations] pot paging kettle.
soliloquy about the orthodox church schism...
[allegations of Ukrainian meddling in Crimea] [ha!]
and now rolling out the new talking point about Ukraine's potential nuclear capabilities...
allegations that Ukrainian armed forces are integrated into NATO, that they can be commanded by NATO units
this is a really long announcement of an invasion/recognition. cut to the chase already.
taking a break from live tweeting. this is getting exhausting.
tuned back in to hear him recall his question to Clinton in 2000 about the potential of Russian membership in NATO.
"why did you decide to make us an enemy"?
"because they don't need a strong Russia"
Now we're on to missile defense in RO/PO and his concerns about MK-41 and SM-6s... and therefore, invading ukraine makes sense?
official US strategic documents apparently contemplate counterforce strikes. news to me. "Ukraine will be a platsdarm for such strikes"
and now the missile-flight-time-from-Ukraine refrain.
"knife pointed at our neck" re missile deployments in Ukraine.
now we're on to the European security treaty proposal from 2009-2010... this is like a greatest hits of Putin's grievances.
called the US/NATO response to Russian December 2021 proposals an attempt to put the key questions to the side
reiterating the new 3 "first-order" issues. 1) nonenlargement; 2) non deployment of missiles and 3) 1997 thing
"their goal is the containment of Russia's development"
[they haven't answered our core concerns. Russia has the full right to respond]
and... "genocide" in the Donbas again.
"how long must this tragedy continue? how long must we tolerate it?" (re "genocide")
"the regime" in Kyiv allegedly hasn't changed at all since 2014.. it wants a military solution
and here it is: Immediate recognition of DNR and LNR, and immediate "friendship and cooperation" treaties
to "those who have usurped power" in Kyiv, "we demand immediate ceasefire" ... or else
AND now he's signing the recognition and friendship treaty documents with both DNR and LNR and their "leadership"... wow, that was fast.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Samuel Charap

Samuel Charap Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @scharap

Feb 22
One thought about what Russia's exit from the Minsk agreements — aka recognition of DNR/LNR — tells us about what is to come. Thread 1/x
Minsk was a mechanism for Russia to cement its influence over Ukraine by returning the Donbas on its terms -- a constitution renegotiated with its proxies and an asymmetric confederal structure with hyper-empowered pro-Russian regions. 2/x
By recognizing the republics' "independence," Moscow has given up on ever getting that mechanism. But the Kremlin has certainly not given up on its objective of cementing its influence over Ukraine. 3/x
Read 5 tweets
Feb 21
Main takeaway from that barnburner of a speech is that Russia now has given itself a pretext to respond to "attacks" on DNR and LNR with no need to conceal its direct military involvement. thread 1/x
Putin not only recognized the DNR/LNR, he also signed "friendship and cooperation" treaties with them, essentially security guarantees. 2/x
whereas before this, Russia didn't have a justification for overt military intervention even under its own laws, now it will. This is an important element of the narrative that was missing. 3/x
Read 5 tweets
Feb 21
Some thoughts on the ongoing show/RF security council meeting: Shoigu now going off on the potential for Ukraine developing a nuclear weapons capability.
Now claiming Ukraine plans to retake the ORDLO by force.
Medvedev now being rolled out to denounce Kyiv's willingness to implement Minsk.
Read 31 tweets
Feb 19
This is an important point. It also underscores the absence of a “playbook” that we’ve heard so much about in recent weeks. In 2014, Moscow only had to twist reality in constructing narratives. This time, they’re just making things up. Thread 1/8
In 2014, there was a revolution led by an armed far-right nationalist vanguard that ousted a democratically elected (though repressive and autocratic) govt dominated by pols from the south and east. 2/8
They actually had a banner of Bandera’s portrait on the Maidan. Really. Clearly there was a *lot* more to the Maidan Rev than that, but those images provided ample material for Russian TV. 3/8
Read 8 tweets
Feb 4
Since everyone is looking for military and informational signs of Russia’s seriousness (or not) about launching an invasion, it might make sense to also think about signs that the diplomatic track might actually be more than Kabuki theater/time-buying tactic/ point-scoring/ 1/9
/alliance management opportunity/letter-writing campaign/pretext creation/etc. — something that might actually preclude the invasion. Here are some things to look for 2/9
1) Presidential-level engagement. There’s only one person in Russia who can call off the mil op. And it isn’t Lavrov. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
Jan 29
You might have noticed Lavrov is fixated on the “indivisibility of security” principle these days. As Tim Colton and I note in our book, the debate over principles of “freedom to choose” and “indivisibility of security” dates to the 1990s. A thread.
amazon.com/dp/1138633089/…
BLUF: since the 1990s, both sides cherry-picked their respective preferred principle to justify their respective preferred policies. [quotes below are from the book]
“Yeltsin grounded his early receptivity to talking about Russia-in-NATO in indivisibility ... Russia was comfortable inside a revised security framework only so long as its prerogatives and stature were taken into account, with all that connoted for the US having to share ...
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(