For all those not worried about this, I want to help you to think as your opponent -- an important part of diplomacy. Imagine that during the Iraq War 2003-11, China or Russia had provided Iraqi militias with advanced weaponry, plus intelligence, plus targeting...
1/n
...information to attack and kill our troops. How would we have responded? What would the media and political pressure on our leaders to respond have been? Now imagine Russia and China decide that they'll give the Iraqi militias the weapons and targeting to strike Britain...
2/n
...itself. Britain says that this would constitute an act of war (especially since nobody believes the Iraqi militias are doing the intel and targeting needed to fire the weapons themselves), and Moscow or Beijing responded that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, that the...
3/n
...Iraqi militias are fighting a war of national survival, and that Britain can leave Iraq immediately to end the war. How would Britain respond to such missiles slamming into Boulmer and Catterick and Brize Norton and Sandhurst? Try to think seriously about that. Now...
4/n
...you have thought about it, ask "Is Russia going to react so much differently to us?"
Having done this exercise myself, I think it's entirely possible that such attacks will lead to some sort of dangerous escalation, namely a response from Russia that risks war. I am...
5/n
...not certain, but I think it's possible. The problem is that the West has pushed and pushed and pushed, convinced of both its righteousness on this cause, and that Russia won't push back. Yet when Russia does respond to the crossing of red lines, such as the...
6/n
...annexation of Crimea or the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, we act outraged and shocked and claim it was all unprovoked. It's heads your red lines mean nothing; tails you are acting like a lunatic. We are repeating this pattern with striking mainland Russia on behalf of...
7/n
...Ukraine. To be clear, I think there are very good reasons for Russia to be extremely careful about responding. At present, it has the upper hand on the battlefield, and it seems to me that one of the few ways to lose that would be to, say, bring NATO tactical airpower...
8/n
...into the theatre. Russia certainly won't want an allout war against NATO. Yet it might also feel the need to to re-establish deterrence to prevent even more damaging future escalations. I wish I could say that I thought the British government and foreign policy...
9/n
...establishment had thought this through. My fear is that they think they're in the right, so they should be able to do it. It is *your* responsibility as an engaged citizen, however, to think this through. You might think the Ukraine cause is 100% right. I'm not going...
10/n
...to disagree here, except to say that even if you *are* correct, you must think through the consequences of pursuing your righteous cause. One thing's for certain: even if Russia doesn't respond, we ought to think of incentives to get it to play ball after the war, otherwise my Iraq scenario will be made real in our next foreign adventure.
ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As many of you will have read, the @WSJ has published what it claims to be the story of how #Nordstream was destroyed. I'm not sure I buy it, but if I did, it raises extremely important and concerning questions about our intelligence communities, governments and media.
First, the story--that the operation was conducted by Valeriy Zaluzhniy, then Ukraine's most senior military officer, despite the fact the CIA got wind of the operation (from Dutch intelligence), and told President Zelensky to stop it, which he ordered Zaluzhniy to...
2/n
...to do--is far too convenient. It is well known that Gen Zaluzhniy, now Ambassador to the UK, does not always see eye to eye with President Zelensky, who dismissed Zaluzhniy from his position as CinC of the AFU and, rumour has it, sees the general as a potential...
3/n
This tweet is a MESSAGE, and part of a thread of messages. PAY ATTENTION!
Sending this message was IMPORTANT to me.
What is in the thread below is REPULSIVE and DANGEROUS.
This tweet is a WARNING about that DANGER.
DO NOT SCROLL DOWN. There is NOTHING OF INTEREST there.
Why did you scroll down? Wasn't I clear that you shouldn't? Didn't I even add unnerving pictures to elicit a *feeling* you shouldn't? Yet you're still here. Why? The answer to this question is vital to the safety of future humans, and suggests important lessons for us today.
2/n
On Olkiluoto Island, off Finland's Gulf of Bothnia coast, 137 tunnels have been dug some 1,500ft deep into bedrock. They are designed to remain unreachable for millennia, and to resist groundwater flow, great hydrostatic pressure, and even the effects of future ice ages.
I think that all of us on the social conservative side of the debate, all of us who gave been in favour of lower migration and have warned at the consequences of successive governments ignoring the concerns of the majority of Britons, should state unequivocally that those...
1/n
...involved in rioting must feel the *full* force of the law. Rioting is unacceptable, and the government has not only the right but the duty to re-establish control. Furthermore, from a personal perspective, I find the outright racism, the crypto-revolutionary forces...
2/n
...that seem to underpin the instincts of many rioters and their supporters, repugnant and anathema. We can mock the government's response; we can highlight the contradictions (believing in punishment and prison, and yet not); we can respond with...
3/n
Britain's migration policy is an important driver of the protest, riots and ethnic violence that have erupted since the horrific attacks in #Southport. This thread tells the story of that policy, while aiming to provide as comprehensive and objective an overview as possible.
1/n
The story starts with the Nationality Act of 1948. Prior to the Act, the concept of a 'British Citizen' did not quite exist. Britons, like Indians, Jamaicans, or Hongkongers, were subjects of the Crown to which they owed allegiance. The 1948 Act, prompted by the...
2/n
...accelerating changes in the Empire after WWII, effectively put those born in the UK’s Dominions and Commonwealth on equal footing to Britons. In other words, somebody from Kingston, Jamaica could live and work in the UK as freely as somebody from Kingston-upon-Thames.
3/n
This is a fascinating short thread that is instructive. Read it first. Essentially it argues that for many years politicians have prioritised economic growth on the assumption that that's what voters want, when this proposition isn't clear at all.
Mr Davies says he now believes that many people prioritise things other than economic growth; for example, on the left, equality, and on the right tradition and ethnic homogeneity. I think this is right, but it might be less apparent if there *was* economic growth. Since...
2/n
...the Global Financial Crisis (almost 16 years ago!), UK GDP growth has locked into a much slower trend. 1.2% seems to qualify as high growth. Further, GDP per capita seems to have almost flatlined (see chart), while sovereign, corporate and household debt has surged in...
UNPOPULAR HOT TAKE (but I don't care, because now is the time social conservatives must speak the truth). Those decrying sectarianism in politics must think harder. What did we expect? That we could dump the world's cultures in forgotten and dilapidated council estates...
1/n
...and towns in large numbers, and produce by unknown magic Liberal Consumer Britons? That we could hand out passports as though they were pizza delivery menus and yet deprive these people of their say at the ballot box? That we could espouse the sort of liberal...
2/n
...individualism that precludes the solidarity needed to affect change, yet complain when Muslim citizens use the solidarity they have been encouraged to maintain (absent much sense of Britishness), to organise, work and campaign for their causes? That our elites could...
3/n