1/10
I see some fretting from certain commentators about how dangerous everything is and how we should reflect on bargaining and escalation and what our objectives really are. So, let's lay it out.
2/10
The current war is the worst situation in Europe since 1945 because it is:
-Active large-scale warfare by one of the nuclear superpowers
-Massive, unacceptable crimes being committed
-Based on highly aggressive revisionism about the balance of power in Europe and beyond
3/10
It is not as globally dangerous as German or Japanese aggression in WW2 - both aimed at expansion into enormous territories - but it is globally more dangerous than Stalinist aggression, which was opportunistic but calculated.
4/10
Putinist aggression is resentful and cruel. It is also incompetent and strategically arrogant. It is within the power of the West to derail Russia, as an economy and as a player in the international system, to a degree that Putin does not even understand.
5/10
The degree to which Putin has miscalculated, militarily and diplomatically, is hard to overstate. Effectively, his only hope is Western appeasers, which he can cultivate using threats with nuclear weapons.
But European states have clear interests, too.
6/10
For Europe, it is unacceptable to have a neighbour that invades European nations, commits massive war crimes, and uses nuclear threats not to ensure its survival but as cover to commit massive crimes against peace and against humanity.
This cannot be tolerated. At all. Ever.
7/10
The desired end state is a decisive military defeat for Moscow, with full and unconditional withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory, such that the entire 2014-2022 adventure fails clearly in the eyes of the world. Further, Russia must be unable to repeat such adventurism.
8/10
Europeans cannot accept nuclear blackmail, as it would forever endanger them in future. Therefore, the only rational answer to Moscow's nuclear threats is to ignore them, while occasionally reminding Moscow that Russia, too, could be completely wiped out.
9/10
Looking beyond Ukraine, the new European security architecture that is needed is not - at all - a concert of great powers, but a powerful and united Western block with a very strong deterrence and defence posture that makes it clear that an attack on Europe would be crushed.
10/10
There is nothing to bargain or to trade because we face a state that is antithetical to our civilisation. The only way forward is victory on Ukrainian soil (Moldova and Georgia should also be considered) - followed by containment and deterrence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/5 I keep on feeling underwhelmed by commentary which puts great stress on fear and on escalation risks without clarity on concrete scenarios and concrete alternatives. It's simple: if Russia attacks NATO, the Alliance goes to war against Russia.
There is no dilemma.
2/5 The #Kremlin forced the current war upon the world. For NATO nations to do nothing to help Ukraine would be not only unconscionable, but also strategically blind, in terms of deterring future wars, and in terms of upholding international norms of the highest value to us.
3/5 As a result we are compelled to assist Ukraine materially. It is an important Western interest to massively raise Ukraine's chances of survival and Russia's probability of defeat.
However we refrain from outright intervention as we aim not to expand the scope of the war.
2/5 We have a dangerous, aggressive, criminal state to contend with.
We must take steps to minimize the capability and the intent of that state to do us harm.
Krastev implies it shouldn't be done and wouldn't succeed anyway.
I say: should be done, can be done, must be done.
3/5 The issue is not whether the RUS economy will survive. It will. RUS has enormous domestic resources. It also has alternative partners. But Western containment will make RUS: militarily less dangerous, and less capable of political subversion against us, other things equal.
1/7 Why I agree with Anton:
One cannot accept nuclear threats as a cover for aggression. If yes, then aggression cannot be deterred and will not stop. The solution is the resolve to fight a just war in spite of all threats.
The aggressor, preferring survival, will retreat.
2/7 The resolve to fight a just war is the response to the worst case scenario of a nuclear power carrying out wars of annihilation. The analytical insight is that only defenders facing an actual risk of annihilation are in an existential struggle, whereas aggressors are not.
3/7 Being prevented from carrying out a genocide, or an invasion, is never an existential problem. Therefore, Putin's war against Ukraine is not existential. He has ample opportunities to survive without it.
1/6 @marceldirsus As an economist I understand that, but I strongly suspect there's a lack of imagination here. DEU policy making in my experience very reliant on asking industry point-blank what they think (want). Lack of state leadership, too much listening, not enough leading
2/6
Here's a few ideas I suspect are insufficiently studied:
-Re-think gas rationing concept if shortage: some industries to furlough 12-24 months, state to pay maintenance and salaries and, crucially, subsidise replacement imports for what they produce to plug supply chains
3/6 -For gas for residential and buildings: ask more effort from them, there's popular will to make sacrifices as polls show. So in sum, more gas for industries that truly need it, less for households and industries that can be furloughed.
1/4
There is indeed a moral trade-off, lives matter more.
But there is also the long view on the national security trade-off, *including* its economic aspects. And this is where @OlafScholz is mistaken for the #German case.
A temporary recession may occur, but can be dampened.
2/4 Gas-dependent industries can be furloughed and import subst. for industrial goods can be arranged. Together with rationing and price & tax management, a lot could be done.
If only for oil, dropping fuel taxes would go very far - they are enormous in Germany.
3/4 And there's a deeper national security question. How exactly would #Germany survive in case of a broader war? Isn't it high time to learn the hard way how to live without RU energy? If not now, then when?
And then there's the issue of forcing RU into better behaviour.
1/8
Western support to #Ukraine is good but insufficient. There appears to be a strategic miscalculation based on a lack of resolve to take on heavier economic costs and to ensure a comprehensive #Russian defeat. Ukraine is *already* acting as a shield and protector for Europe.
2/8
But this is neither the time for cynically dragging out the conflict at the cost of Ukrainian cities and lives, nor for dirty compromises at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty. Our values must mean something. And our strategic interest is clear.
3/8
Our short-term goals should be:
A: A defeated and humbled Russian state with diminished and demoralised armed forces
B: A net gain for Ukraine in terms of its sovereign control of its territory and in terms of military prestige and honour