Thread by @FRHoffmann1

This thread discusses the role of 'risk' in the ongoing war and highlights the problematic approach the West has towards risk management.

In essence, my argument is that risk is a feature, not a bug in the situation we are currently in, and we have to treat it as such. 🧵👇 1/24

The West's approach to supporting Ukraine, especially that of key players like Germany and the United States, has been to supply necessary equipment while minimizing perceived risks of escalation that could arise due to weapon deliveries. 2/24

These considerations were brought to the forefront during discussions about Taurus and ATACMS deliveries (but they also exist independent of them).

Scholz and Biden have made it clear that they view the risks associated with this type of weapon delivery as too significant. 3/24

The desire to eliminate risks for your country and people is understandable. After all, this is the oath they swore when assuming office.

However, this approach overlooks crucial lessons from Cold War history on how to handle the type of crisis we are currently facing. 4/24

In the present situation, there are no risk-free decisions. This is the heart of the challenge we confront with Russia.

Decisionmakers have to assess the risks they can or 'must' take, and those they should avoid. Refusing risk categorically is not a display of leadership. 5/24

During the Cold War, Western decisionmakers understood this.

That is, for example, why the 🇺🇸, 🇫🇷, and 🇬🇧 ignored Khrushchev's ultimatum in 1958 to withdraw their troops from West Berlin, and why the United States confronted Soviet tanks at Checkpoint Charlie in 1961. 6/24

Decisionmakers were aware that this standoff could escalate into a military confrontation.

Yet, they understood that giving in prematurely was not an option. Doing so would demonstrate a lack of resolve & susceptibility to blackmail, weakening future negotiation positions. 7/24

During the Cold War, several crises of this nature occurred.

These scenarios are referred to as "risk-taking competitions". This type of crisis involves at least two nuclear powers and tends to escalate until one side gives in, leading to a de-escalation of the crisis.

Risk-taking competitions highlight the paradox of the nuclear age: to prevent a nuclear conflict, you must signal to your counterpart that you are, in principle, prepared to fight a nuclear war and, as such, risk it to an extent – even if neither party desires this outcome. 9/24

This logic has influenced the nuclear powers during the Cold War and remains highly relevant today, as demonstrated by the war in Ukraine.

Both NATO and Russia possess substantial nuclear arsenals, rendering a direct military confrontation virtually inconceivable. 10/24

And yet, the West must credibly signal that it is not afraid of confronting Russia.

Open display of risk intolerance and fear of escalation may encourage Putin's aggressive behavior and promote Russian escalation, possibly also directly towards NATO. 11/24

That's why the the current position of Scholz and Biden is so unfortunate.

The two are correct that an escalation caused by the delivery of Taurus/ATACMS cannot be ruled out -- just as was the case with previous weapon deliveries, by the way. 12/24

But the risks of delivery must be carefully weighed against those risks associated with non-delivery, and not just in military terms.

I'm concerned that the real harm of not delivering Taurus/ATACMS is primarily seen in the political implications this decision carries. 13/24

First, this will damage the West's credibility in deterring Russia.

With such apparent risk intolerance, how can we convince Russia of our unwavering resolve as the crisis may intensify and escalate in the future? 14/24

https://twitter.com/FRHoffmann1/status/1746589444050989557

Second, it sends alarming signals to our Eastern European allies.

How can states bordering Russia trust the 🇺🇸 and 🇩🇪 to come to their defense if push comes to shove, as these countries signal that they prioritize their own security above all else. 15/24

In this context, it is no surprise that that the Polish Foreign Minister speaks of the potential need for US allies to start their own nuclear weapons programs.

This is Poland leveraging its nuclear latency to signal the urgent need for credible security commitments. 16/24

In all of that, escalation risks associated with Taurus/ATACMS deliveries continue to be minimal.

1. 🇺🇦 already deploys comparable weapons
2. 🇺🇦 has already used these weapons against sensitive targets
3. 🇷🇺 has received similar weapons from third parties

etc. 17/24

To further reduce risks, technical restrictions such as geo-fencing, fuel limitations, and pre-programming missiles could have been implemented.

In addition, targeting restrictions could have been imposed on 🇺🇦 upon delivery, similar to what 🇫🇷 and 🇬🇧 seem to have done. 18/24

And yet, whatever residual risks remain appear to have been deemed too significant.

In doing so, 🇺🇸 & 🇩🇪 signal severe pain intolerance and escalation angst to Moscow, ultimately eroding the perceived balance of resolve in favor of 🇷🇺.

Needless to say, this is dangerous. 19/24

This stands in clear contrast to the Cold War, when the 🇺🇸 and West Germany accepted substantial risks in order to safeguard their own security and reassure allies.

They understood the necessity of taking risks in order to achieve desired outcomes. 20/24

The West, and in particular the 🇺🇸 and 🇩🇪, must relearn those Cold War lessons and drastically change course.

Risk is a feature, not a bug in the situation that we are currently in. We must treat risk as a tool that we can manipulate, similar to how 🇷🇺 perceives it. 21/24

Most importantly, there are situations where risk-taking is no longer optional.

In my opinion, this is particularly evident in the case of Taurus/ATACSM delivery. But I have no doubts that similar situations will arise in the months and years ahead. 22/24

I'm aware of the burden this imposes on decisionmakers. But ultimately we elect political leaders to make tough decisions during challenging times.

Scholz & Biden appear to believe that accepting risks is not a solution. In reality, not accepting risks is also no solution. 23/24

Good news is, some European leaders have grasped this fact, especially those in the Baltic states & 🇵🇱.

Macron's approach has also shifted significantly. Lately, he has been making an effort to signal resolve and to manipulate risks in order to complicate Russian planning. 24/24