1/ I guess (with no expertise) that one reason the Ukrainians may have gambled on Kursk is that the Russian army is at its weakest when having to react quickly.

That's when rigid top-down leadership, low morale, poor communications, terrible logistics and so on hurts the most.

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1821820902075412650

2/ In Donetsk the Russians are playing to their strengths. It doesn't take a lot of coordination to slowly flatten one village after another with glide bombs until meat waves can seize it, then advance a kilometre and do it again.

It's grinding attrition. Warfare by spreadsheet.

1/ Except Ukraine isn't in Russia's Sphere of Influence anymore.

That's the point.

You could argue Ukraine WAS in Russia's Sphere of Influence immediately after its 1991 independence from the Soviet Union, but Russia (not the CIA or Nuland's cookies) completely blew that.

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1813662763899842966

2/ A Sphere of Influence is an area of the world where you can shape events even though you don't have any formal authority to do so.

A part of the world where your cultural, economic, clandestine, diplomatic and military assets let you shape local government decisions.

1/ Ukraine joining the EU, which everyone claims to want, will mean accepting Ukrainian agriculture flowing into the Customs Union without tariffs.

In that regard, EU unwillingness to face down its farmers over Ukrainian grain _now_, at the height of the war, is troubling.

https://twitter.com/AndyBounds/status/1806190360688783827

2/ Ukrainian agriculture is only going to grow more competitive once it has won the war.

Beyond the peace dividend itself, investment will flow in, mechanisation will increase, facilities for meeting sanitary/phytosanitary requirements will be built and scaled.

1/ In his great piece today Alan lays makes a case for why the UK should cease doing trade agreements as they'll deliver little value, and may imperil eventual re-joining or alignment with the EU.

I agreed with the facts, but disagree with the prescription.

🧵of my thinking 👇

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/1798615656616866041

2/ The facts I absolutely agree with:

First, no combination of free trade agreements, with anyone, will ever come close to offering the same trade benefits as membership of the EU.

It's like trying to offset shutting down the London Underground by improving bike lanes.

1/ First and foremost, if it ever comes to a real jets, tanks and missiles shooting war with China, the paltry parcels of old tech the US is contributing to Ukraine will be completely immaterial to the outcome.

https://twitter.com/ElbridgeColby/status/1791839108693659866

2/ A conflict with China will either be very small and contained, with both sides desperately monitoring escalation - in which case what the US has already will suffice, or a massive total war requiring production on levels that dwarf what's being sent to Ukraine.

1/ One of the common reactions to this was that the WTO rules compel the UK to introduce checks on EU goods.

First, well done everyone on knowing about the WTO and Most Favoured Nation. I'm proud and apologetic in equal measure.

Second, that's not entirely true (in practice).

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1784925257364558047

2/ To oversimplify things, the Most Favoured Nation rule requires that you do not have different rules for different countries.

If your rules state that beef with Mad Cow Disease is not allowed you can't then say that actually Mad Cow Disease is fine as long as it's French.

1/ Thread of random things to keep in mind when reading these and other stories about the border this week as the UK attempts to start actually enforcing its own regulatory checks.

politico.eu/article/uk-bre… 2/ As @AnnaJerzewska points out, the government and the industry wildly disagree about the impact this will have on consumer prices.

Like by a factor of hundreds. 🤷‍♂️

https://x.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1784911599125344337

1/ Recorded a guide to how I personally would go about challenging seven of the most common arguments against the US sending aid to Ukraine.

Hopefully some of you find it useful.

Will very briefly summarize the counter-arguments I make in this thread.

Arguments addressed:

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1782070504058208385

2/ Ukrainians were fighting before US aid arrived and continued fighting after it paused.

Depriving Ukrainians of hope to drive them to the negotiating table is morally abhorrent.

Putin won't negotiate reasonably if he thinks he can militarily crush an abandoned Ukraine.

🚨Slightly Mortifying Personal News 🚨

I wrote a book and it's now on pre-sale (link below).

I've spent years yelling at my screen as influential people who can or should know better said wild things about trade to advance their agendas.

This book is my attempt to push back. The book will be released on May 23rd of this year, published by @CanburyPress. You can pre-order it below.

It is my attempt to explain trade policy and the choices it involves as I would if anyone were ever dumb enough to ask me over a glass of wine.

canburypress.com/products/why-p…

1/ I like people and think they're overwhelmingly good and decent.

My default assumption is that whatever the slogans, or extremist elements, the vast majority of the people on the streets are just appalled by the images coming out of Gaza, and are calling for peace. 2/ Has every single person marching got a comprehensive and fool proof 12 point plan for reconciling Palestinian independence, Israeli security, regional geo-stability and the million other factors at play?

No, and that's fine. Marches are about sending signals that we care.

1/ International law lacks enforcement because major powers negotiating it did not want mechanisms that could kinetically prevent, curtail or punish the pursuit of their ends, even if the means involved breach the letter or spirit of the law.

They still don't.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1718179511253061663

2/ What little power international law has is almost entirely normative.

It only matters as long as countries believe it matters - and so for lack of better options we repeat ad nauseum that it does, while also arguing its broad benefits outweigh any specific constraints.

1/ Remember the best and most consistently accurate way of understanding Putin is to think of him as a mob boss.

It's The Wire, not the West Wing.

Prigozhin disrespected the Godfather and made him look weak. That's it. That's the only relevant consideration. 2/ "Won't this undermine Russia's efforts in the Sahel?"

Putin doesn't care. The Sahel is important to Russia's strategic plans. It's not important to him.

Murdering Capos who disrespect you and make you look weak is Putin's understanding of how you stay in power.

I wanted to go through this point by point, respectfully and assuming every question raised was in absolute good faith.

Note: I know nothing about this man or his politics (though I can guess) and am treating his questions seriously for the benefit of other readers.

https://twitter.com/DeplorableVet84/status/1674125214924394516

The US has exactly as many serving troops fighting in Ukraine as its NATO European allies: zero.

The US **is** contributing a lot of materiel, but Europeans collectively are also sending a lot, both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.

1/ Since absolutely no one asked, that David Sacks about the 'failed counteroffensive' broken down paragraph by paragraph.

Summary: Long tweets are an abomination and tech bro geopolitics is painful.

🧵 2/ The Ukrainians are making territorial gains every day and have almost half a year before rain or snow makes mobility impossible.

They are advancing on some of heaviest fortifications built since World War II.

This is what cautious tactical offensive warfare looks like.

1/ The refusal of serious people to YouTube debate cranks, or to invite them onto mainstream media programs is not shutting down 'debate'.

You have to qualify to play against Nadal at Wimbeldon.

Similarly ideas and people need a certain level of credibility to earn engagement. 2/ We debate ideas constantly.

Discourse is a messy and often frustrating debate between ideas bidding for the respect, resources and support of policymakers and the general public.

YouTube Gladiatorial Sophistry is just one, often shitty, manifestation - not the sole option.

1/ Hi. I teach negotiations.

Some thoughts about where I disagree with Aaron about how compromise and negotiation logic apply to this situation.

Taking the comment in good faith because the underlying questions are interesting and many others share Aaron's view.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1661377546489872384

2/ Aaron is absolutely correct that a negotiation involves compromise from both sides.

If there are ever peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine will not expect to get 100% of what it wants - but what it wants is A LOT more than all of its territory back.

I can't speak to how genuine it is but there's a sound political logic to Zelenskyy showering love and photo opportunities on Western politicians that support Ukraine.

Diplomacy 301: maximise how much domestic political upside there is for foreign leaders in doing what you want. The British public has a VERY pro-Ukrainian position.

The British public also feel very good about how much support the UK is providing to Ukraine.

Giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to bask in that is good politics from Zelenskyy and incentivizes keeping arms coming.

1/ Treating this question in good faith because I can appreciate how someone may intuitively wonder.

To begin with, no matter how large a civil service team you put together, it's not going to contain expertise on the technical detail of everything 4,000 laws cover.

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1656386497040228354

2/ So what does examining a law actually involve.

Let's pick an EU directive at random - this one is on the reduction of single use plastics.

So your first step would probably be to find someone in the civil service who actually knows about this...

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…

1/ A review of the @dfat diplomatic network has just concluded and it's really interesting.

Some reactions on key points if international relations is your thing...

(This will be long, sorry.)
(h/t @stephendziedzic)

theguardian.com/australia-news… 2/ I think like many middle powers, Australia hasn't always been fully clear on what a diplomatic network, outside a few key capitals, is actually FOR,

At least theoretically, the primary purpose of diplomats is not 'representation' but insight and access.

1/ I think both those worrying and those cheering for current government moves on the basis they are salting the earth and inoculating the country against a future Rejoin effort are worrying/gloating needlessly.

I appreciate that's bold but hear me out. 2/ Short of declaring war on North Korea and surrendering unconditionally, there is almost nothing a Parliament in 2023 can do LEGISLATIVELY to prevent the United Kingdom from one day re-joining the European Union... if the massive POLITICAL impediments are somehow overcome.

The popularity of the "Deep State saboteurs" theory is easy to explain.

A certain type of person believes governance is easy - all you need is to put a tough, no nonsense man who will "just get on with it" in charge.

Then you do, they fail, and so you invent a shadowy cabal. It's not that slapping down a goods border where none has existed for decades is hard or disruptive, the way everyone told you it would be, there must be a 5th column thwarting all your miracle 'technical solutions' and preventing British businesses from 'getting on with it.'