“Diplomacy” is a board game, based on a map of pre-WW1 Europe, & a set of rules which would delight Machiavelli - or Bismarck.
It helps us see what Putin wants.
It should really be called “War”, because that’s ultimately how you win the game.
A 🧵/1.
All the talking, dealing & betraying is purely directed at invasion & occupation of territory, to the greater glory of the victorious World - or at least European - King.
In real life it would mean immense riches &, fundamentally, survival. /2.
You can’t stay put & be satisfied with what you’ve got. Because you’ll likely be eliminated. There are no cooperative, peaceful, enduring alliances you can rely on.
Diametrically opposed to those he faces to the west. /3.
What I’ve marked on the board is (approximately) what Putin already has.
Going right to left, that’s up to the first red line (plus the massive extent of Russia to the east).
And it shows what he wants.
That’s the hatched area, up to the second red line. /4.
He won’t stop until he gets it. Or is stopped.
He might want a bit more (Greece, Albania, Austria …) but not less.
So it’s essentially the maximum extent of the territories of the Russian Empire+USSR+Warsaw Pact/ “Iron Curtain” countries. /5.
What might have seemed fantastical to many a week ago, & still probably seems hard to absorb today, is now emerging for all as reality.
None of the “deals” you might have heard being proposed will work. /6.
In fact, they’re essentially versions of what we’ve been doing for over 20 years.
They can buy some time.
Perhaps.
You could argue they did up to now. /7.
But that was in the context of much greater weakness on Putin’s part. And we’ve gifted him the opportunity to become far stronger.
His “conventional” forces (& economy) are still far too weak to achieve his full objectives.
Which is why he’s resorting to nuclear terrorism. /8.
With his nuclear forces - like the USA & to a lesser extent France & UK (although they’re pretty much US offshoots) - he has the power to annihilate whole countries, or the world, in a few minutes. /9.
Of course, it’s massively important (to put it mildly) that we avoid nuclear war.
But it’s now obvious to anyone who doubted it before that Putin will threaten nuclear war whenever he thinks it useful, in pursuit of his perverted requirements. /10.
Giving him what he wants because he’s threatened nuclear war will lead to an escalating danger of nuclear war, as he calibrates his response to repeated capitulation on his progress west. /11.
That leaves us with the crisis President Biden - the Europeans can’t achieve anything on their own - faces today. /12.
How to face down a nuclear terrorist in charge of thousands of warheads, large armed forces & huge territory, without precipitating nuclear war & without feeding an escalating threat of nuclear terrorism & associated escalating probability of nuclear war. /13.
From the same source. Or potentially others, emboldened by US/ Alliance failure to deal with this one.
That is, obviously, fantastically difficult.
But it’s the job. /14.
Of course, the US could decide to do a “1945” & concede all of central & eastern Europe to the USSR/ Greater Putania.
It might work. For the US.(I’m v doubtful, but I see the logic).
Let’s not imagine for a second this is about “Ukraine” only.
Look at the board. /15. End
P.S. It really isn’t about NATO. Or Ukraine’s mystical part in Russian history👇
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.