Putin’s actions put the crisis past the point of a diplomatic resolution. Putin has eliminated the last realistic off-ramp for the crisis. He signed away the possibility of achieving his political aim, a veto over Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation, w/o a military offensive.
Only real bad diplomatic options remain. One of the major parties must now capitulate to avoid military hostilities.
The West would need to abstain from responding to todays major attack on the international system and conced to Russia a veto over European security…
Ukraine has no diplomatic path, with Russia, as the Minsk format is dead.
Russia would need to recognize Ukraine as a Sovereign state (Putin mocked the very idea) & return 190k troops to there bases, w/o achieving his main objectives, & while facing the risk of major sanctions.
With the stroke of a pen, Putin has locked in a collision course. The question is whether this course locks in the New Cold War or takes us towards a hot war.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Russia has invaded Ukraine. The U.S. must respond with significant sanctions to punish Putin’s aggression and deter further invasion. Failure to do so invites further aggression.
Decades of inaction resulted in ever increasing belligerence towards the West.
It’s nonsense to say, “well the Russians have been in L/DNR for 8 years, so nothing new, nothing has changed.” The status quo theory doesn’t hold up. Formerly, Russia waged a covert war. As of today, Russia’s involvement is overt, provocative, & probing for West vulnerabilities.
This open invasion demands a direct and forceful response commensurate with the serious violation of international law.
This is standard fare for Russian strategic signaling. It’s part & parcel of Reflexive Control doctrine. Planned set of inputs, nuclear exercises, alerts, civil defense drill to force U.S. leaders to primal decision-making… i.e. self-deterrence. Scary… it almost always works!
In this case, there is no runway for further self deterrence. The U.S. has already clearly expressed no appetite and zero willingness for risk for a bilateral confrontation with Russia and a readiness to defend NATO art. V.
That’s why @POTUS said both “no boots in Ukraine” and also positioned U.S. forces to secure NATO.
I stand with @Renew_Democracy Fellow @EnesFreedom! I know something about risking your career to do the right thing and that's what Enes did. He spoke out in defense of Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others who don't have a voice. Even if we don't know exactly why he was waived, 1/5
it fits a pattern of the @NBA kowtowing to China's dictatorship. They brought the hammer down on the @HoustonRockets GM after he expressed support for Hong Kong protests. They've bent over backwards to appease the CCP, and this sets a dangerous precedent. 2/5
We used to believe that open societies would export freedom & democratic values, such appeasement shows that we've begun importing authoritarianism. Unfortunately, the @NBA isn't alone. @Disney thanked CCP-aligned groups in Xinjiang who are committing genocide against Uyghurs 3/5
I appreciate the sentiment @SenSanders, but can’t overlook the contradictions. “We must do everything possible to avoid an enormously destructive war in Ukraine” necessitates using hard power (all means) to attempt to deter a devastating war. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Your rejection of hard power is also inconsistent with your call to accept geopolitical realities, i.e. “spheres of influence.”
And, casting aside self-determination is in deep contradictions with progressive beliefs.
A rejection of Ukraine’s NATO membership (not even a possibility for years) doesn’t end this crisis. Putin wants Ukraine. Putin will force the issue, even if the U.S. rejects progressive principles such as the “Open Door” policy.
US, NATO & Russia have not moved closer to a diplomatic solution. This Russian military buildup is unprecedented and even includes Belarus. A massive offensive is coming. How could this play out?
Read my full take w/ @DomCruzBus: foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukrai…
1/
There are many possible scenarios. Something short of an offensive might include recognition or annexation of the occupied Donbas. In a limited operation, Russia could seize more of the Donbas & major cities like Mariupol or Odessa, and establish a “land bridge” to Crimea. 2/
But these options would be unlikely to force diplomatic capitulation. They would entail costly urban warfare & long-term occupation of Ukr w/ insurgency. The Kremlin wouldn’t regain influence or control over Ukr domestic & foreign policy, and Ukr wouldn’t become a failed state.3/
Now what? Diplomacy looks to be a dead-end & the U.S. & West have done little on deterrence. Russia's offensive against Ukraine will be the largest in Europe since World War II & there is nothing effective being done to avert it. Start working contingencies & arm Ukraine.
The USG should have started with an engagement (diplomacy) & pressure track. When paired, the pressure track would aid the possibility of dissuading the coming Russian offensive. Instead, the West went all-in on diplomacy, absent a display of hard power. It was destined to fail.
The pressure track, still has a small, possibly of being effective. The intent is to avoid the kind of war that is likely to drag the U.S. into a conflict (e.g. World War II). What to do: 1) Send troops to Eastern Europe to reassure allies and help with refugees coming from Ukr.