Minna Ålander 🌻 Profile picture
Sep 24 6 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Taking stock of 2,5+ years of Russia’s war against Ukraine:

- Western leaders have successfully avoided nuclear war
- but made the war in Ukraine a world-order changing event, which it didn’t necessarily have to be
- and made nuclear proliferation more likely in the future
The West’s incremental strategy has enabled Russia to gather support from China, North Korea and Iran who were more hesitant in the beginning. They are now building the BRICS+ alternative, which can become serious competition to the western-led international order.
Thanks to this dynamic, both Iran and North Korea are less isolated now than pre-2022. Iran might very well reconsider the costs (which seem pretty low) and benefits (which seem high, given that Russia was able to coerce the West into indecision) of crossing the nuclear threshold
Russia has been able to reconstitute its military and gear up production faster than was assumed, thanks to the coalition of partners it now has.

China probably profits the most, with the U.S. also dragged back in into the Middle East and unable to focus its strategy.
Meanwhile, in spite of western leaders’ “personal convictions” about deep strikes, Ukraine is hitting ammunition depots hundreds of km into Russian territory. No thanks to its western partners.
More details about how all this is panning out in this thread, with quotes from @TheEconomist

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Minna Ålander 🌻

Minna Ålander 🌻 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @minna_alander

Sep 20
Takes on Finlandisation and its post-Cold War legacy are almost exclusively bad. Labelling it as “diplo-nonsense to appease the USSR” is as mistaken as romanticising it as some kind of stroke of genius that could be exported to any other country with a Russia problem.
The only mind-boggling aspect of this is that things many Finns privately thought are now within the limits of political correctness to be said out loud.

The gist of Finlandisation was that there was a thin, performative official truth but the reality was often the opposite.
Finland was to an extent a victim of its own success, as the thin official truth had to be convincing enough to the Soviet Union. External western observers only saw the official truth and believed it to be the full truth. Pretty cringe sometimes to read literature from the time.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 19
This is what I feared. I had hoped that things changed in the past 80 years and supporting Ukraine’s defence TO THE FULLEST would be a no brainer. But the western incremental strategy to keep Ukraine afloat but not more was bound to lead to this disillusionment & loss of trust.
The consequences of having generations of Ukrainians who remember how we, in fact, did NOT stand with Ukraine in their hour of need will be devastating. And I don’t think western leaders appreciate it enough what a powder keg this might create, if we end up failing Ukraine fully
Sorry to be the cliche Finn and to go on about the Winter War, but the trauma of having been left alone then just sits so deep.

Just this week it was announced that Sweden will be the framework nation for Finland’s NATO FLF and people are like, ok but can we trust them now
Read 5 tweets
Sep 2
It bothers me about the alarmist takes on Russian nuclear sabre rattling that nukes are reserved for an extreme case & the conditions of an existential threat must be met to contemplate use.

Even with a more “liberal” 🇷🇺 doctrine, I don’t see how this war would tick the boxes.
As much as Putin would like to twist and turn it, it’s not a defensive war for Russia. It’s also not an existential one. It’s a war of choice.

AND it’s supposed to be a minor regional conflict, so nuclear use in such a context would signal extreme weakness.
Military experts have pointed out that Russia would hardly gain much by using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. On the other hand, politically that would change the conflict significantly, for the worse for Russia.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 27
As a Finn, I know what it feels like to be part of a nation that is several generations into the healing process after an unjust aggression that was successfully averted but not without massive consequences. That’s why it’s killing me what we are doing to Ukrainians. A thread:
In the Winter War Finland wasn’t important enough for anyone in the world (not even its neighbours) to receive substantial military aid. The result could’ve been different if only we had had an air force. Sounds familiar ?
Finns were tactically & strategically totally superior to the Soviet army and inflicted incredible losses on the invader. But when the Soviets managed to shift the fight to an attritional frontline, Finland couldn’t sustain the fight due to much less manpower. Sounds familiar ?
Read 9 tweets
Aug 22
For me, the most frustrating thing about Zeitenwende is that I hoped for it to include Germany learning to make right decisions and not always having to go through the loop of first making a bad decision and then being forced to correct course under pressure from partners. Alas
As a diplomatic source in Berlin astutely described it, “Zeitenwende could have been a quantum leap but they made it a time loop”
Also, it’s mind boggling that Germany, not only the largest economy in Europe but the 3rd largest in the world, thinks that allocating €34bn in total aid (incl military, humanitarian & financial) is somehow sufficient for a war on our continent…
bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwer…
Read 6 tweets
Aug 14
With the Kursk operation proceeding beyond all expectations, Ukraine has reminded both Russia and the West that the war is far from settled.

I wonder whether many decision-makers and analysts in the west fully appreciate what’s at stake in this war. Some thoughts:
First: there’s no “deal solution” available. Not even Trump can “deal his way out” because there’s no status quo to return to.

At this point the war has unfolded a global effect that is the question whether the western-dominated rules-based world order will prevail.
It’s very much a win or lose situation. Russia has gathered around itself a group of states (Iran, North Korea, China) that are eager to challenge the West’s dominant position and all profit from the continuation of the war.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(