The Syrian example shows that Russia can be kicked out and will go home. The Baltics were right – the West is strong enough to win. We don't need to fear "the Bear" in Ukraine or anywhere else he is causing chaos.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵There are five illusions about Ukraine that lead to flawed “peace” plans that are doomed to fail. I have listed the illusions here in the hope that reality-based discussions can soon become the norm.👇
1️⃣2️⃣3️⃣4️⃣5️⃣
1️⃣The Illusion of Diplomacy.
Diplomacy alone cannot keep Ukraine safe. Words must be backed up by strength on the battlefield. To get a fair deal you have to carry a very big stick, not just an olive branch. Ukraine must be much stronger if Europe wants to stay secure.👇
2️⃣The Illusion of Expense.
The headline figures of "billions" create the illusion that we can't afford to do more. But when the pandemic hit, we raised €750bn in the EU alone. The amounts needed to secure victory and lasting peace for Ukraine are small in comparison.👇
The peacemongers have failed.
Escalation was not managed, conflicts were not contained, people were not protected, laws were not respected. Now I hear victory is "unrealistic" and not even worth fighting for. But I see things very differently, and here's why. 👇🧵1/10
The messy failure and total bankruptcy of our strategy is hard to watch. In desperation some hallucinate that a “peace agreement” would be achievable, effective, practical and sustainable, a magic wand to make all the bad things go away. 🧵2/10
Some hope a “peace agreement” would not only wash away our sins, but also make people forget that victory has always been possible. Sure, we could have won at any time, even now, but we chose to lose instead. Worse than that, we forced our choice on Ukraine. 🧵3/10
Idealists say aggression is fundamentally unacceptable. Realists say Russia is so strong that resistance is futile and acceptance is the only answer.
Well, I say we are strong enough to defend our ideals, and fighting back is the most realistic choice. Here's why. 👇🧵1/16
Russia is attacking Ukraine not because of a threat, a diplomatic dispute or a broken promise. Russia is attacking solely because, in the Kremlin's view, Ukraine is weaker and therefore attackable. In other words, the attacks would stop if Ukraine was stronger. 2/16
We have gone back to the times of geopolitical power competition. International law and the UN Charter are being ignored and overridden by force. We must therefore increase our own strength to reverse this trend. 3/16
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
My thoughts on my way back to Lithuania after the NATO Summit.🧵
The event was well organised and sent a strong message to the people of America about the respect the USA is attracting from its allies and partners.🧵
Politically the expectations for deliverables from the Summit were low. It was clear a couple of months ago how the declaration would look. If the goal was to have a smooth event, that was achieved. What didn’t happen was any major strategic breakthrough.