“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👇
A long 🧵. To read with a strong cup of tea to hand.
Let’s think of President A & President B. I’m not naming any individuals, you understand.
President A thinks “America” (first) & “European (& Asian) free-rider weaklings” & “beautiful deals”./1.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. For President A it looks like this:
- the strong do deals, the weak suffer what they must
- who is strong, in style & nuclear warheads?
- Putin & Xi
- who is strong economically? /2.
- of the first lot Xi. There’s also the EU & Japan. But they have “weak” leaders, & no nukes. (Well, France & UK have nukes, but they’re really American, even the French ones (don’t tell anyone I told you that))
For anyone wondering if “NATO is the problem”, before you go anywhere near that look at:
(a) escalation of violence, theft & political manipulation by klepto-oligarchic leaders trying to survive /1.
(b) the convenient, for Putin, mythology of Ukraine & Rus (“Kiev is the heart of Rus & the origin of the Muscovite dynasty”) /2.
(c) EU success when observed, by Russians from Russia, happening in neighbouring former Soviet republics, as a profound destabilising factor for Russian domestic politics under Putin’s terrible, failed regime /3.
Does anyone still think “NATO enlargement” has been “the problem”?
Does anyone still labour under the illusion our governments haven’t known for many years precisely what Putin is, & what needs to be done about him? /1.
Let me tell you a story from 2008. My son was 10 days old. Having co-led a UK diplomatic crisis response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia, I’d been asked urgently to review our policy toward Russia. “Urgent”, for such a fundamental piece of work still meant a month or so. /2.
Now here I was sitting opposite the Foreign Secretary explaining the outcome to him. This is part of what I said:
“Russia is run by the people who own it, principally an elite of a few dozen, largely dominated by ex-KGB officials with a world view formed during Soviet days./3.
The crisis facing Europe makes an incapable, unfit PM, reviled by key international allies, an even more unacceptable threat than it already was, to the security, prosperity & well-being of GB & NI.
Code red.
Time for action, @Keir_Starmer & true political leaders.
A🧵/1.
The largest group of Westminster MPs which still supports constitutional, liberal democracy, is led by @Keir_Starmer.
He should now become PM, backed by the majority of MPs across the Commons who also do so.
Including a third of Conservative MPs.
And all opposition MPs. /2.
With the possible exception of the DUP parliamentary group. Up to them to decide whose side they’re on.
The time for party politics is over. For some years.
… warmongering on behalf of US aggressors, & making binary, anti-Russian judgements, faced with complex, multi-faceted conflict situations & identities.
Wait, I forgot: @STWuk doesn’t “endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes”. /3.