WaPo notes inconsistency in Biden admin reasoning on sanctions, but misses a major point: WaPo doesn't report here that sanctions (on Nordstream 2) were actually imposed BEFORE the attack.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1497004373679161344
2/ US imposed sanctions on Nordstream 2 because Russia gave diplomatic recognition to the two Donbass republics that had previously declared independece in 2014 during Obama admin (shortly after US-backed regime change coup). BEFORE attack.
3/ so whatever deterrent effect was possessed by threat of Nordstream 2 sanctions on an ATTACK was used instead as retaliation for the mere DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION of the two Donbass republics.
4/ it seems possible, maybe even probable, that diplomatic recognition was merely a legalistic staging point for subsequent invasion, but what if Blinken's original position was right and the threat of sanctions were a deterrent?
5/ if Blinken's original position was right and the threat of sanctions were a deterrent to an invasion, then US may well have played sanctions card too early (on diplomatic recognition), thereby removing a constraint on Russia's decision.
6/ at that point, they were confronted with a situation where US was sanctioning them whether they invaded or not - thus fulfilling the worst domestic Russian narratives - thus, removing last obstacle to invasion decision.
But maybe Blinken was wrong and it was happening anyway.
But maybe Blinken was wrong and it was happening anyway.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
