After 100 days of Putin's unprovoked, barbaric invasion of Ukraine, let's remember the forest and trees. Putin is winning a few battles now. He may win more. But he has lost his war already. 1/ THREAD
Let's remember what Putin outlined as his war objectives. In his long essay about Ukraine, his hour-long speech before the war & many other times, Putin was very clear about what he aimed to achieve. So far, he's achieved very little. 2/
Putin explained to us that Russians and Ukrainians were one nation -- Ukrainians are just Russians with accents. He aimed to reunite this nation, torn apart as much by the Bolsheviks as the West. Regarding this objective, he has failed miserably. 3/
Putin has done more than just fail to recolonize Ukraine. He has actually helped to rejuvenate and reunify the Ukrainian nation. Look at Ukrainian opinion polls. They are more united as a nation today than maybe ever before. 4/
Second, Putin aimed to "denazify" Ukraine. He had planned to install his own puppet regime in Kyiv. He failed completely. 5/
Third, Putin aimed to "demilitarize" Ukraine. Again, complete failure. His invasion has actually strengthened Ukraine's military, now armed with better weapons than ever before & more is on the way. 6/
Fourth, Putin aimed to seize Kyiv and Ukraine's second-largest city. Again, complete failure. 7/
Fifth, Putin has now scaled back his war aims to just take Donbas and what Russians call "Novorossiya", connecting Donbas to Crimea. So far, he has only captured a handful of cities, barely more land than he de facto controlled in 2014. 8/
And the costs of taking this handful of cities have been tremendous for Russia's army. Russia has lost giant numbers of soldiers and weapons. Russia's army will take years to recover, and will have to try to do so now without access to Western technology. 9/
Putin's invasion of Ukraine also has triggered sweeping sanctions, doing deep damage to the Russian economy. It will take years if not decades to recover. Russian economic isolation from the West will last as long as Putin is in power. 10/
Putin loves to berate American allies as "vassals." Yet, a "vassal" state is exactly what Russia will become to China as a result of Putin's invasion. 11/
And what about that "NATO threat" that allegedly played a role in Putin's decision to invade? Well, NATO is way more unified today than before the war and soon to be stronger with 2 new members joining. 12/
Its too early to predict with certainty, but post-war Ukraine is likely to be more democratic, and rebuild a more competitive, open, and less-oligarchic economy than before, accelerating Ukraine's EU membership aspirations, the exact opposite of what Putin wants. 13/
I hope Im wrong, but tragically, the Battle for Donbas is likely to drag on for months, producing only incremental gains for either side but at a tremendous loss of Ukrainian and Russian lives. Putin could just stop today & begin negotiations. But he won't. 14/
But keep that battle in context. We dont know yet who will win the Battle for Donbas. But we do know who has won the War for Ukraine -- Ukrainians. And we do know who are the losers of this war -- Putin and the Russian people. 15/ END THREAD
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In addition to Morgenthau, let me quote another high priest of realism arguing against appeasement with whom I agree. 1/ THREAD.
“Appeasement contradicts the dictates of offensive realism and therefore it is a fanciful and dangerous strategy. It is unlikely to transform a dangerous foe into a kinder, nicer, opponent, much less a peace-loving state." 2/
"Indeed, appeasement is likely to whet, not shrink, an aggressor’s appetite for conquest." 3/
Lots of self-proclaimed "realists" are arguing these days that appeasing Putin by giving him Donbas will end his invasion. But it should be noted that scholars from the realist tradition have also argued the exact opposite. 1/ THREAD.
"Appeasement is a foreign policy that attempts to meet the threat of imperialism with methods appropriate to a policy of the status quo. Appeasement tries to deal with imperialism as though it were a policy of the status quo." 2/
"It errs in transferring a policy of compromise from a political environment favorable to the preservation of the status, where to belongs, to an environment exposed to imperialist attack, where it does not belong." 3/
When I worked at @WHNSC and @StateDept, I observed that decision-makers tended to overstate the risks of action and underestimate the risks of inaction. Non-decisions are decisions with consequences too. THREAD 1/
The current debate about whether to give Ukraine MLRS is a serious one. I'm not privy to all the secret intel that NATO leaders have. But NOT transferring this weapon system has consequences too. Is it really in the US and NATO to allow Putin to occupy all of Donbas? 2/
And if Putin takes Donbas, why do people assume he will stop there? Nothing whets the appetite of an invader to try to take more territory than short-term victories. 3/
3 months after invading Ukraine, Putin has failed to achieve all of his major war objectives. 1/ THREAD
Putin believes that Ukrainians are just Russians with accents. His major war objective was to “reunite” this alleged “one nation.” He failed dramatically at achieving this objective. 2/
Before invading, Putin promised “denazification.” He aimed to overthrow the Zelensky government. He failed . 3/
What has Putin done for Russians lately? THREAD 1/
He has turned Ukraine -- a country with deep historic and cultural bonds to Russia -- into an enemy forever. 2/
He has squandered Russia's military assets -- including Russia's most precious assets, young men -- on fighting a non-existent threat of Nazis in Ukraine. 3/
People keep speculating on Putin's imminent use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. I have no access to secret intel on Putin's state of mind right now. But if he is still thinking rationally, then what would be the point? THREAD 1/
If attacked, would Zelensky and Ukrainians stop fighting? No way. 2/
Would Biden and the West pressure Zelensky to capitulate because Putin used a tactical nuclear weapon? Highly unlikely. 3/