So on getting Ukraine fighter jets. It's not a straight forward call. Only thing feasible w/d be for Ukr to get old Soviet jets that they know how to fly. Fmr Warsaw Pact NATO members, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria (unbelievably) still fly them. 1/
It is common for countries to transfer used weapon systems. The US has the "Excess Defense Articles" program where countries come and pick up old US mil equipment and bring it home. This would essentially be that. Ukrainian pilots could come pick up the aircraft. 2/
But would Ukr pilots just pick up fully fueled and armed MiGs in Poland and go straight into combat? Ok. But are there any airfields in Ukraine for them to land afterward? Do they have fuel there? Or the right munitions for resupply? Would they just return to Poland? Okay... well
Kyiv is like 600Km from Poland. A MiG 29s range is like 1500 km... so not a lot of leeway. And if those jets don't have an airfield in Ukraine. Is Poland going to act as a safe haven, to refuel and rearm Ukr aircraft? Russia c/d not unreasonably view that as a mil target.
Real risk of massive escalation has to be weighed against the actual military utility.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵on US security assistance to Ukraine. It's working. Ukraine might be one of the biggest successes of US sec assistance. And the reason is b/c US aid didn't focus on some high-end shiny objects but on core mil tasks. That focus s/d remain. 1/
In 2014, the US had no security assistance relationship with Ukraine. They got like $2m in asst from State FMF for int peacekeeping. The Ukrainian military was in a total shambles. Corruption had literally gutted the military. 2/
As war erupted in 2014, we scrambled in the USG to rush aid. But a number of issues arose. Ukraine's needs were enormous. They needed stuff right away. And they needed to be able to use that right away. Those posed real constraints initially. 3/
The problem outlined by @HalBrands of US military overstretch - split b/w Euro and Asian theaters - w/d be resolved by this EU initiative; paired w/ increases in German defense spending. Europe would be mobilizing to become a legit global military power. foreignaffairs.com/articles/china…
Critically, it is not that this would lead to a division of labor - yes Euros focus more on Russia, us on Asia. But the EU, w/ econ as big as US and China, has clear interests in Asia as well. Legit Euro mil assets c/d also deploy to Asia if needed.
The time has come for EU defense. New from me and @benjaminhaddad calling on the EU to borrow 400m euros, a NextGenEU II. If the EU can borrow for econ recovery, it can borrow for defense. 1/ politico.eu/article/ukrain…
The EU funds could be used to: 1. Fill key NATO capability gaps, making EU "complimentary" of NATO. 2. Acquire high-end systems for the entire Union -enablers, like fleets of air-transport/tankers, ISR-UAVs. And air and missile defense systems. 3. The EU...2/
should invest in modernizing the militaries of former Warsaw Pact stats that are now frontline states. Many still operate aging Soviet equipment.
The EU, with its huge financial heft, can close gaps in Euro defense that other MS and NATO can't do.
We are witnessing the emergence of a global power in this crisis: the European Union. I was confident that a Russian invasion w/d be a shock to Europe and lead to a robust response. But never w/d I have predicted the announcements from Germany, EU, and others. Truly stunning. 1/
In a blink of an eye Germany will spend 100bn euros on defense. To put this in context their entire defense budget is 53bn euros. Germany, Sweden, and the EU are sending lethal asst. This will dramatically grow EU's hard power capabilities. 2/
The EU was already an economic power. But it is showing its geopolitical resolve w/ sanctions. Europe will likely suffer a hit in the tens of billions of loss of economic activity. Much more so than the US. But the EU is leaning in. 3/
This is a very insightful and thoughtful thread. Let me offer one point. I think the Russia analyst community never really grappled with the significance of Russian interference in the US election. It was a clear sign Russia was content w/ a new Cold war. Thread. 1/
It was super easy to lose the thread on what actually happened in 2016. Not just b/c it became a huge US political scandal but it also descended into a tedious legal affair. FP analysts also (understandably) wanted to stay out of that morass and focused more on disinfo. 2/
But Russia's interference was incredibly reckless. And said a lot about Putin and Russia's outlook. What they did was not small. It was blunt and effective. They hacked a US political party and leaked the contents - twice! A DNC chair resigned and dominated the Oct news cycle. 3/
What should be clear to everyone is that Russia has rejected diplomacy. They have now dismissed countless efforts to engage them on actual substance - mil exercises, conventional forces, deployment of mil assets. They've simply rejected talks. 1/
Instead, they're making farcical demands, essentially asking the US and Europe to control-alt-delete the last 25 yrs and go back to Soviet times when they ran Eastern Europe. Sorry, no. But they know that's not happening! All the huffing and puffing about NATO is just pretext. 2/
Putin lost Ukraine on HIS watch. And he is determined to bring it back under the Kremlin's sphere. And he's out of options. Corruption/influence ops/winning elections (ala Yanukovych) no longer work. Zelensky arrested Putin's man in Ukraine and seizing Crimea/Donbas shifted...3/