Thread by @GLandsbergis

If all NATO members followed Lithuania and increased defence spending to at least 3% of GDP, there would be an extra $270bn available for supporting Ukraine and defending NATO's borders. I hear this is politically "impossible", but here's how Lithuania did it: 🧵1/12

Public support for defence spending requires a new social contract and a widespread understanding of the risks of inaction. In Lithuania, we understand the risk of Russian aggression far too well, our civilians have died under T-72 tanks. 🧵2/12

In countries with no experience of occupation by Russia there is a tendency to underestimate the risks to all of Europe that are being posed by this “regional conflict”. Such terminology is incorrect. This is now a global struggle for rules-based freedom and prosperity. 🧵3/12

Russia, with the help of allies Iran, Belarus and North Korea, is already rebuilding. Not just threatening to bounce back, but preparing to win, and to march on further. That is the only explanation for the Kremlin’s choices. 🧵4/12

Peace in Ukraine is not a matter of ownership of Donbas. Putin is never stopped by “peace” “agreements”. His appetite for land doesn’t decrease, however much you throw to him. Yes, there are historical analogues for his annexations and no, they didn't bring peace. 🧵5/12

But even if leading politicians explain the risks, voters still might not accept the costs of effective deterrence, because they worry that their taxes will be diverted away from services that they use daily. So that’s why we need to rethink the social contract. 🧵6/12

In Lithuania, even in an election year, we increased defence spending not just by borrowing money, but also by increasing taxes and budgeting for it sustainably. This is important to secure the long-term support of the population, not to kick the can down the road. 🧵7/12

Lithuania’s economy is growing, so the amount we are spending on defence is also growing even if we don’t increase the percentage of GDP. But we managed to increase it anyway, because our people understand why. Ukraine’s freedom is our freedom. 🧵8/12

If you want to update the social contract and enable your economy to provide enough weapons to defend the schools, hospitals and factories on your territory then you need to have a serious debate about the role of taxpayers in national defence. It won't happen by magic. 🧵9/12

More countries need an honest debate about an updated social contract, including adequate defence. But you obviously won’t convince your population to pay for more weapons if you also pretend that Ukraine's surrender would quickly bring peace. That myth must be busted. 🧵10/12

Negotiations with Russia have never worked, not in Putin’s time or Soviet times or the days of the Czars. We have every reason to believe Russian propagandists and people in the streets when they say they are aiming for Berlin and beyond. 🧵11/12

Even if my historical arguments do not convince you, I have a simple economic argument. During WWII the UK increased defence spending to 50% of GDP. Ukraine is already spending 37%. Increasing to 3% to deter invasion seems cheap in comparison. 🧵12/12