Thread by @UmlandAndreas

Some observers may conclude from current Ukrainian military advances that #Ukraine does not need that many weapons any more. Victory for Kyiv looks more & more possible. Seemingly, the rationale for heavily arming Ukraine is weakening in view of Kyiv's impressive recent gains. /1

However, Ukraine precarious location in a geopolitical grey zone will not change any time soon. As long as Ukraine is neither a NATO nor a full EU member, the country will have to take care of its security itself. Russia may either continue now or resume later its aggression. /2

An as heavy, comprehensive and modern as possible arming of #Ukraine has thus not only a tactical dimension. It is not only necessary for a successful completion of the current counter-offensive, and eventual achievement of a peace deal with Moscow that is acceptable to Kyiv. /3

Arming #Ukraine seriously also has a distinctly strategic & long-term dimension. Kyiv needs to be well-equipped not only as long as current fighting continues, but also during the ensuing interregnum between a peace deal with Moscow, and Ukraine’s eventual EU & NATO accession. /4

Weapons are needed not only to finish the current war, but also to prevent another one. Even after Ukraine’s entry into Nato or the EU or both, it may remain a frontier state, if #Russia continues harboring revanchist ambitions. Then too, a well-armed Ukraine will be needed. /END

@threadreaderapp #unroll
@ukraineoffice @AU_EuropeCenter @ua_platform @LawUkrainian @CPD_UA @PromoteUkraine @ADASTRA_UA @EESRIorg @NEC_Ukraine @UkrainianFocus

PS: Some respondents to and retweeters of this thread found its initial presumption inapt. These commentators overestimate the continental West European eagerness to support #Ukraine, and underestimate the spread of unreflective pacifism among, for instance, ordinary #Germans.