Thread by @dszeligowski

🧵 Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

emma.de/artikel/erich-…

Let's start with the basic facts: [ONE] there was no “civil war” in Ukraine "between Russian-speaking ethnic groups and Ukrainians themselves”. Russia annexed Crimea and subsequently the Russian special forces staged an alleged local rebellion in Donbas

One can easily find dozens of footages from April 2014 on YouTube, from the seizure of Sloviansk to its liberation by the Ukrainian army. Here’s amateur footage showing the seizure of a militia unit in Sloviansk by Russian spetsnaz on 12th April 2014

And here’s Russian colonel Igor Girkin, VI2014 in Sloviansk, live on Russian TV, talking about the encirclement of the city by the Ukrainian army. Before Girkin commanded the Russian specop in Donbas, he led a unit that took part in the seizure of Crimea

For years Western politicians were afraid to call a spade a spade. They hid behind Minsk Agreements and Normandy talks, and turned a blind eye to Russian occupation of Donbas. Yet today talking about civil war in Ukraine automatically disqualifies one from any serious discussion

[TWO] Denying Ukraine NATO membership was an essential part of Merkel’s flawed Russian policy, which Vad co-created, and which Heusgen once famously described as “always keeping in mind what was tolerable for Russia”. No wonder Vad still clings to this assumption like a mantra

But Ukraine’s NATO bid has never been a reason for aggression. In fact, it was a mere excuse intended to fool Western fetishists of dialogue, which successfully allowed Putin to postpone delivery of Western arms to Ukraine on the eve of the invasion

https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1482381615569551362

Putin always regarded Ukraine solely as Russian territory that must be regained, no matter what Ukraine's foreign policy course would be. German soft spot for dialogue only helped reassure Putin that this was achievable. I elaborated more on that here:

https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1557699783850184711

[THREE] Putin never wanted any deal with Ukraine. What the Russian delegation put on the table in March/April was not a peace agreement but effectively an act of surrender of Ukraine, providing for the far-reaching disarmament of the country and the curtailment of its sovereignty

Furthermore, Russia did not negotiate a grain agreement with Ukraine, but with Turkey and the UN. And even in this case, Russia has continuously sabotaged the deal and blackmailed the international community with the breaking of the agreement

Nothing wrong with UA-RUS talks, but those proposing to press Ukraine on this issue are unable to vouch Russia will keep its word, while Russian track record has been clear. As I argued in XI2021, “Ukrainian concessions invite further Russian escalation”

cepa.org/article/minsk-…

[FOUR] The political concept behind arms deliveries to Ukraine is clear – restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Whether through a military victory or through Russia's unilateral withdrawal from Ukrainian territory is a secondary matter

Moreover, Vad openly lies by saying that arms supplies to Ukraine are pure militarism which has not been matched with diplomatic activities. Only recently, in December 2022, Scholz spoke to Putin by phone and once again without success. Not to mention Macron’s phone diplomacy

[FIVE] Regardless of whether Vad’s assessment of the situation in Ukraine as an operational stalemate is accurate or not, he is wrong in saying that the situation cannot be solved militarily. Surely it can, but it requires continuous military support for Ukraine which Vad rejects

In fact, Vad repeats the same mantra as the German government did for almost a decade: that there was “no military solution” to the situation in Donbas. After which Putin invaded Ukraine and proved that a military solution exists

Puzzling is also Vad’s assessment of the course of the war. He calls successful Ukraine’s counteroffensives “regionally limited offensives”, while admitting with some sort of admiration, that the Russians are clearly advancing and they will soon conquer whole Donbas

[SIX] Furthermore, he manipulates by calling certain political circles pro-war or pro-peace ones. Leaving Ukraine alone to the mercy of Russia is not at all a peaceful solution, as the Russian crimes in the occupied territories prove

Actually, the choice we face in Ukraine is between the delusion of peace and a lasting peace. Between a prelude to yet another Russian escalation and the definitive curtailing of Russian appetites towards Ukraine. And yes, it is up to Ukraine to decide on that

[SEVEN] An ultimate argument of Vad is of course the prospect of a 3rd World War, and hence the suggestion that the war against Russia cannot be won because it is a nuclear power. Yet USSR withdrew from Afghanistan, and the US withdrew from Vietnam and Afghanistan without WWIII

Finally, Vad epitomises all the worst features of German foreign policy, as seen from the perspective of Central and Eastern Europe:

1/ Russia-first approach. Vad repeatedly takes Russia as a point of reference – and so he says that the West must think about the European order with Russia, should give Russia security guarantees and should not drive Russia into the arms of China

2/ Denying agency to the countries between Berlin and Moscow. Vad claims that keys to solving the war lie in Washington and in Moscow, and goes on to say that it is “ridiculous that Ukraine has to decide” on the matter

3/ Claiming superiority. Vad complaints that military experts who know stuff, including himself, have been excluded from the public debate. But Vad has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia. Already on Feb24, he said that the war is essentially over, a matter of days, no more

On another occasion, two days before the Russians announced their withdrawal from Kherson, Vad went on to say that he expected weeks of intense fighting as the Russians would not simply go away since the region was strategically important to them

[END] While Vad speaks positively about Chancellor Scholz and his half-hearted approach to arming Ukraine, one can only hope that Scholz gets better advice – not from random joggers. Precisely for the three reasons mentioned above Germany has lost the confidence of CEE countries