1/5 Alright. This about wraps it up for #Scholz.
Now this is reported speech, not quotations, but the source is legitimate. #Scholz deliberately limits both military assistance and boycotts in support of #Ukraine and is not oriented towards a vision of Ukraine winning.
2/5 He believes this ensures he will not be Kaiser Wilhelm II - Emperor in the First World War.
I presume this relates to the contemporary myth of "the sleepwalkers" - as if supplying weapons for a defensive war were comparable to invading Belgium.
I struggle.
3/5 #Scholz doesn't see Ukraine prevailing, he sees the end game as #Putin declaring he's done, and he also neither wants to maximise help to Ukraine nor maximise the squeeze on Russia. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the expense of Ukraine.
4/5 He does see Russia under #sanctions, no business as usual, as long as it occupies territories. This is consistent with his government's march towards cutting energy links. It is for the long haul, and hence it is slow. Not a snap punch to break #Putin.
5/5 All of our nations consider escalation risks carefully.
But #Scholz is clearly in the camp of the more frightened leaders, slamming on the brakes while the survival of a fellow European nation is at stake. He lacks the #courage and the vision necessary for the current trial.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/14
Those who follow the German discussion may have seen this article. The contents are accurate.
But the title *when shared on Twitter* is a serious falsehood: it says "NATO does not want to deliver tanks". Poland has delivered over 200.
2/14
Somebody at the public broadcaster decided that the original title "No tanks for Ukraine?" (see link) should be rendered on Twitter as "Informal agreement: NATO does not want to deliver tanks" (see tweet above).
A deliberately false statement in a headline for social media.
3/14
The contents of the article are accurate and carefully worded. It is clarified - correctly and importantly - that there are no NATO *decisions* on these matters, only informal consultations. And that each nation decides.
BILD and @JulianRoepcke were correct.
1/18
Interesting, if infuriating to those who want more decisive support for #Ukraine.
My sense is that #Germany's State Secretary (see below) slightly misrepresented a true issue. The true issue is that nobody is supplying Western models of MBTs and IFVs.
2/18
This suggests there are thresholds or limits, and evidently they have been discussed and are being pursued by the US, UK, France and others, and Germany is aligned onto them. However, to suggest this is or requires a NATO *decision* is dubious.
3/18
NATO doesn't regulate the arms supplies of its members to third countries. Those are sovereign, national decisions. Arms supplies to Ukraine come from both NATO and non-NATO countries and the key consultations are held outside the NATO framework.
1/7 On #defence and #security policy choices in the #IndoPacific :
I recently produced research assessing how 12 nations are aligning, looking at defence spending, arms imports, military exercises, intel sharing, and force presence agreements.
3/7 A statistical analysis on trends in stocks of imported armaments shows most countries with a break (a change) around the year 2014 - this is consistent with threat perceptions towards #China going up around 2012.
1/9 Notes on the Ukraine Defense Contact Group.
This is a US-led contact group for donors of military aid to #Ukraine. Its first meeting was at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, on 26 April.
This 2nd meeting, held virtually today, 23 May, saw new commitments, notably:
2/9 Previously, the UK had led two Donor Conferences in February and March, and established the International Donor Coordination Centre, alongside the US' own coordination centre. Both work out of US EUCOM HQ in Stuttgart.
3/9 This 2nd meeting: 47 countries, at Ministers of Defence and Chiefs of Defence level. Ukraine attends of course. All NATO Allies take part, plus several others. New countries joining for the first time at this meeting: Austria, Bosnia, Colombia, Ireland, Kosovo.
1/7 It has been obvious for a long time that Gaullist ideas are rooted in how France bemoaned its loss of Great Power status. But if you're a mid-sized European nation worried about Moscow, you want reliable protection and no artificial irritants to relations with the U.S.
2/7 But how, then, should Europeans insure themselves against a possibly more demanding or overstretched U.S.? Security starts at home, at the national level. CEE Allies are moving towards this: strong national capabilities and defence budgets are the win-win approach.
3/7 In a healthy context of high defence investment, allied collaboration will be on a solid footing, with no resentment due to free riding. The other part is boots on the ground and skin in the game. Here, another France is coming into focus -
1/4 Is Ruscism such concentrated evil that it is not just horribly violent but also absurd?
Yes. Sadly, yes.
Examples:
-Knowingly accuse your enemy falsely of what you are doing to them
-Lie to prisoners unnecessarily in the process of illegally executing them
2/4 True evil not only does not have to answer the question 'why?' - it does not want to, and is even triumphalist in the observable fact that there is no reason. Being irrationally evil is part and parcel of being truly evil.
3/4 Evil unleashed is a most dreadful force. But it also contains the seeds of its own defeat. Because the chiefs are evil idiots who are easily provoked, and the executioners are evil idiots who are easily killed.