Today’s speech by Putin is a milestone in the Russo-Ukraine War. It may be useful for Putin in a domestic politics sense. But, as has been the case throughout this war, it is terrible strategy for Russia. A thread on the implications of Putin’s latest ‘bold’ move. 1/25
2/ The full text of the speech in English. I recommend reading it all - while providing a couple of breaks to vomit. It is anti-Anglo-Saxon, anti-LGBTIQ, anti-‘elites’, anti-West, and anti-US. And anti-Ukraine of course. en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…
3/ The principle audience for the speech was the domestic one. Putin used the speech as a war update, with the message that Russian progress so far is significant, securing 4 regions of Ukraine to return to the Russian motherland.
4/ Another audience was Russia’s military leaders. In essence, Putin said “I have given you this great and historic mission, so sort your act out with mobilisation and get on with deploying more soldiers to Ukraine.”
5/ And, Putin probably believes that this speech will be well-received in certain, non-aligned parts of the world including South Asia and Africa, who still buy his energy and other products. He might be right.
6/ But what does this mean for the course of war in #Ukraine? There are multiple impacts of Putin’s new - and flawed - strategy.
7/ First, it is another demonstration of Putin’s inability to align his desired political outcomes with the capacity of his military. This has been a characteristic of the war from day one. The Russian military is incapable of achieving what Putin has directed it to do.
8/ Even the scaled back strategic objective of liberating the Donbas, announced in Putin’s 9 May speech, has proven beyond the Russian military. This expanded approach, encompassing 4 provinces, is likely to be well beyond Russian military capacity to seize or hold.
9/ So, Putin has actually set himself up for failure in this regard alone. He has set out large objectives, which his military are unlikely to achieve, which will place further strain on his credibility and that of the Russian military. It is terrible strategy.
10/ A second impact is that this will encourage Ukraine to step up its efforts to take back its territory illegally seized by Russia. So far, it is doing a pretty good job of this and battlefield momentum is currently with the Ukrainians.
11/ Ukraine, with its strategy of corrosion, has out fought and out thought the Russians throughout this war. They have brilliantly used the indirect approach to destroy Russian units and morale. And they have magnificently applied the operational art in sequencing campaigns.
12/ As a consequence of Putin’s announcement, the Ukrainians have reinvigorated purpose. We should expect to see offensives continue, including (maybe at a slower pace) through the winter. And resistance attacks in annexed areas will increase.
13/ But the continuation of Ukrainian tactical and operational success also relies of the continuation of western support. This leads to the third impact.
14/ Putin has given the west greater reason to support Ukraine. This illegal land grab goes against the all principles of self-determination and democracy. And it sets a terrible precedent for behaviour by large states - this can’t be allowed to stand. nato.int/cps/en/natohq/…
15/ Fourth, Putin has continued his campaign to normalize the potential use of nuclear weapons. His reference to US use of nuclear weapons in WW2 as a precedent means he may see them as a final option to prevent a catastrophic loss in Ukraine. And to deter further NATO support.
16/ Fifth, Putin is continuing his ‘energy warfare’ against Europe. His speech again asked Europeans why they support the war, noting that “Europe have to convince their fellow citizens to eat less, take a shower less often and dress warmer at home.”
17/ A final impact of the speech is it shows that there is no negotiated end to this war in the near future. Putin stated that the future of the 4 provinces will not be discussed. Coupled with mobilisation, Putin has painted himself into a corner. He now has to win this war.
18/ This makes him probably even more dangerous. But it will also result in greater pressure on the Russian economy and on Russian society. The ultimate impact of this is unpredictable - but unlikely to be good. A good piece on this is from @anneapplebaumtheatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
19/ Putin may also give the west no option but to further increase its aid to Ukraine. And, possibly, new consideration of Ukrainian entry into #NATO. Putin’s war and annexation nearly guarantees what he sought to prevent by invading Ukraine. president.gov.ua/en/news/mi-rob…
20/ The other irony of the speech is that it comes as Ukraine is about to capture #Lyman & show its military prowess again by humiliating the Russian Army. It is another demonstration of Putin’s constant incapacity to align his political desires with military capacity.
21/ And if the ‘professional’ Russian military that has been trained and re-equipped over the last decade can’t prevail in Ukraine, it is extraordinarily unlikely that a mass of conscripts with just weeks of training will provide a solution to Putin’s territory aspirations.
22/ So Putin’s speech marks a more dangerous phase of the war, because he has shown himself to be more desperate. But the annexations, and mobilisations, are unlikely to change ultimate outcome of this war.
23/ Because, there is little else that Putin can do to Ukraine he has not already done. City destruction, rape, torture, murder, annexation and nuclear threats have not cowed the Ukrainians. They continue to show how a free people can defeat authoritarians. Take note Xi!
24/ The trajectory of the war remains for an eventual Ukrainian victory. But Putin’s recent announcements mean that #Ukraine winning this war will take longer, and have a much higher price - for Ukraine and Russia. End.
An Easter truce has been declared by Putin. Not only is this a cynical act of someone who has sustained his aim to subjugate #Ukraine, it has huge practical challenges. So why has Putin done this and what does it mean for the war? 1/10 🧵 politico.eu/article/putin-…
2/ The truce is a short one - about a day. It is a truce that Putin has called unilaterally, so it is not binding on the Ukrainians in any way. That Putin has done this shows that he still believes that he has the upper hand in the war, and can dictate its tempo.
3/ But war is an interactive endeavour, and does not work like that. The Ukrainians and Russians are engaged along a nearly 1000 kilometre front line. The Russians have recently stepped up the tempo of attacks, and this momentum can’t just be turned off like a spigot.
Over the past three years, both sides in the #Ukraine war have learned and adapted. Battlefield, strategic and international collaboration and adaptation are accelerating and intensifying, resulting in a global Adaptation War. 1/7 🧵🇺🇦
2/ In my latest piece, I examine how Ukraine and Russia have both 'learned to learn better' since the Russian full-scale invasion in 2022. I also look at their key battlefield and strategic adaptations.
3/ I also explore the emerging collaboration and adaptation between authoritarians. Russia's war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East have spawned a rapid expansion in the sharing of insights between Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.
In short, the ‘leader of the free world’ is considering siding fully with a brutal authoritarian, endorsing its invasion of a democracy, and agreeing with forced territorial expansion. 1/7 🧵 🇺🇦 reuters.com/world/trump-en…
2/ This will legitimise and encourage the same behaviour elsewhere in Europe by Putin, who is already conducting subversion and sabotage across the continent, and preparing his military for future aggression against other nations in Eastern Europe. The current posture and signalling from the Trump administration makes future war elsewhere in Europe almost certain.
3/ The leaders in Iran, North Korea and China are watching closely. Each have aggressive designs against democratic neighbours. Each will be highly encouraged by this clownish, amateur negotiating style and demonstrated lack of interest in defending democratic nations and values.
China admits its latest aggression around #Taiwan is a rehearsal for a blockade. This latest exercise is described as "stern warning and forceful deterrence" by an Eastern Theater Commander spokesman. A quick examination of the exercise and its purpose. 1/9 🧵 channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/chin…
2/ The spokesman also described the latest exercise as focusing on "sea-air combat-readiness patrols, joint seizure of comprehensive superiority, assault on maritime and ground targets, and blockade on key areas and sea lanes." Besides the obvious messaging and the application of military power to bully and coerce Taiwan, as well as other regional countries, into accepting Chinese pre-eminence over the Western Pacific region, why is China doing this now?
3/ First, these increasingly larger joint exercises normalise large-scale activity around Taiwan. This normalisation of military activity, at increasing scale and frequency over the past couple of years, complicates the ability of the U.S. to respond. It has to make a choice about when does the increasing scale become dangerous and worthy of an intervention.
From the nation that brought us the Marshall Plan, we now have this proposal for the “Trump Plan” for #Ukraine. Where the Marshall Plan embraced enlightened self-interest by America, the Trump plan is predatory, and basically an extortion bid against the people of Ukraine. 1/7
2/ Where the Marshall Plan was extended in scope to push back on Communism and Soviet influence and Europe, the Trump Plan basically employs Russian & Chinese economic coercion measures, and will negatively impact U.S. reputation in Europe.
3/ Where the Marshall Plan rebuilt infrastructure in Germany, France and even the UK, and ensured those nations had functioning, sovereign manufacturing and transport sectors, the Trump Plan aims seize Ukrainian assets.
“This is going to be great television…I will say that.” This is how the American president summed up the conclusion of the most fractious meeting to have occurred in front of journalists between an American president and his foreign counterpart in the modern era. An assessment of the Oval Office ambush of President Zelenskyy. 1/10🧵(Image: C-Span)
2/ The signs earlier in the week had pointed to a more productive meeting. President Trump had rolled back his narrative about Zelenskyy being a dictator, and the minerals agreement may have seen America having an enduring interest in the security of Ukraine. All that disintegrated in an explosive, unseemly exchange between Zelenskyy, Trump and Vance.
3/ What are the immediate implications of the Oval Office brawl that will be studied for years to come?