Thread by @althecat

Putin is playing a game of Chicken with the EU over natural gas, which was always predictable.

I can't help thinking that arming Ukraine was a strategic mistake, had it not been able to defend itself so effectively this war would not have escalated so far so quickly.

https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1506705857681186816

Whilst doubtless an unpopular viewpoint now, if the Russian attempted occupation and war continues through the summer, with all its attendant death, mayhem and ensuing economic and global chaos, the alternative of having a short war and negotiations may grow more attractive.

Of course its too late now. And this request will likely be refused during the EU-US summit tomorrow, risking further escalation in the form of gas supplies to the EU being curtailed/halted.

On the positive side, like Covid, this might result in a fall in carbon emissions.

But I can't help wondering whether the decision to arm Ukraine taken last year by the UK and US was out of order. Had the EU and European Nato members known what the consequences would be, would they have agreed?

I am increasingly of a view that the only way to actually prevent the horror of war is to not let them start in the first place. And the only reliable way to achieve that is for those who are being invaded to not fight back.

Back in May 2021, a unilateral ceasefire brought a quick end to a war in Gaza that was in danger of spiralling out of control. Whilst Israel claimed they were doing it, in fact it was after a day of no Gazan rocket fire that peace became possible.

Then on June 28th 2021 the Ethiopian Govt also declared a unilateral ceasefire. This one was less effective, in large part because there was no western pressure placed on the TPLF to reciprocate. Instead there was a lot of praise for their supposed military victory.

Had western powers pressured the TPLF to also lay down their arms then - during the Olympic truce - then the horrors of the invasion of Afar and Amhara might have been averted, avoiding 10s of 1000s of deaths and massive destruction of hospitals, schools and industrial capacity.

The third unilateral ceasefire that I am aware of took place in 1999 in East Timor, when the newly elected democratic Govt in Jakarta decided to simply withdraw from East Timor and allow UN peacekeepers to go in.

A bloodbath had been indicated in this crisis.

The seeds of peace were sown in Auckland NZ at an APEC meeting which was also attended by Bill Clinton, John Bolton and the UK Foreign Secretary.

But back to the current conflict. It is close to impossible to imagine not supporting Ukraine in their current fight.
But for the sake of argument how valuable is avoiding the destruction of Ukraine to Ukrainians?
What if the war continues and Kyiv, Lviv are also flattened?

My understanding is that Finland is looking at joining NATO in coming months. A move which will certainly risk further escalation.

How much escalation risk in a potential nuclear warfare context is too much?

The beauty of a unilateral ceasefire is that it does not require agreement. It can just be done. And it results in a situation in which the other party can back out gracefully.

In the case of Ukraine, the ceasefire negotiations are apparently fairly close.

A unilateral ceasefire does not necessarily mean a surrender - though in some circumstances it might. Rather it is an offer to the other side to cease offensive military action.

For example Zelensky could say: "We will stop firing, and you will then have to make a decision about whether to continue your war. If you attack we will defend ourselves. You have 24 hours starting now."

A UN Security Council meeting could be held to discuss/support Ukraine's proposal, Russia would have to explain at that meeting why it was continuing to attack if it elected to do so.

And after 24 hours it would be clear whether or not there was a ceasefire or not.

Right now there is no apparent way out of this war. There is no "off-ramp" or "end game" beyond the usual calculus of war which tends to revolve around the creation of "circumstances on the ground" i.e. territorial control. But this just leads to the nightmare we see in Syria.

In this case so much more is at stake than normal:
- 70 years of relative peace in Europe
- Nuclear War
- Global food shortages
- Destruction of the global order
- Global economic catastrophe and loss of trust in the financial system.

In addition threat of further escalation keeps increasing exponentially.

A "Circuit-Breaker" is clearly needed.

The "unilateral ceasefire" has been tested and has occasionally worked, maybe there are other similar approaches.

But doing nothing seems like a very big mistake. As Einstein says, "doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity." And that is where we are now.

One final point.

According to recent reports neither the U.S. nor Russia had not expected Ukraine to put up such an effective fight.

I.E. the US/UK arming of Ukraine did not have the intended outcome.

Meanwhile for some intl. players, Ukraine's successful defence of itself (albeit whilst having its cities reduced to ruble), is now seen as an opportunity to defeat and possibly remove Putin.

Whilst logically this approach may make some sense, it is also morally bankrupt.

It is not Ukraine's job to rid the world of Putin, and this was not what Zelensky or the Ukrainian people signed up for - what they asked for was NATO help. This was refused.

Their battle was always simply to keep their own country and to remain free and democratic.

Meanwhile removal of the threat posed by Putin may be valuable, the threats faced in pursuing a goal of Russian regime change is not equally shared.

Eastern European countries whose development has already been stunted by the Cold War face a greater threat though this objective than Western European nations. And the UK and the US face the least threat, they both have nuclear weapons and moats.

/ENDS

@threadreaderapp unroll