1/4🧵
I am sure there are many ways we could enforce a red line without triggering WWIII. Speaking in Kyiv recently I suggested telling Putin that Ukraine will get Taurus, to take out launch sites, if any Russian drones violate NATO airspace again. Why not? 2/4🧵
The geopolitical Groundhog Day is still stuck on repeat. Each undeterred and unanswered escalation leads to another, bolder and more frequent. Each explanation for inaction becomes weaker and more elaborate. Only real deterrence can stop the cycle.

1/8🧵
Our leaders’ white lies were designed to keep us thinking everything is OK. Now, as things are clearly not OK, it’s time to tell Europeans the truth and prepare them to face reality.

White lies won’t last forever – but telling the truth could save Europe.

My latest article explains how and why it’s time for governments to try using more honesty in strategic communication, and to find the bravery to admit we’re in serious trouble.

Full article in the thread below… 2/8🧵
Politicians might fool their own people with white lies, but I am not so sure of their ability to fool Putin.
Full article:

Or continue reading the thread…landsbergis.com/white-lies-won…

We still aren't helping Ukraine to win. Politicians announce their latest attempts to appear busy, but it feels scripted, closer to professional wrestling than reality. Failing in the real world, they construct a pseudo-world and act like the leaders of that. 🧵1/4 The latest announcements made the Russian stock market go up, not down. Putin is not fooled by headlines advertising the latest western nothingburger, but those headlines dominate our discourse and mask the fact that nothing of real consequence is being done.🧵2/4

🧵1/4
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister recently stated that, in order to achieve peace, NATO must “withdraw” from the Baltic states. Many found this shocking—but the demand is not new.
As early as the 1990s, when it became clear that newly independent states from the former Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union might join NATO, the Alliance sought to assuage Russian concerns by signing the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997. The document aimed to mitigate Russian objections to NATO’s enlargement.
One of its key political commitments was that NATO would refrain from deploying “substantial” permanent combat forces in the territory of new member states. In return, the Act reaffirmed core international principles, including respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the UN Charter.
Russia has since repeatedly violated these very principles - most notably with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 🧵2/4
Just prior to that invasion, Russia issued a list of demands to Ukraine and the West. Its central demand to NATO: a rollback to the Alliance’s 1997 borders - effectively requiring the withdrawal of NATO forces and infrastructure from all countries that joined after that year.
While NATO declared the Founding Act “dead” in political terms following the invasion, it never formally repudiated or denounced it. So de jure, the document still stands. And one could argue it remains de facto in force as well, since there are still no substantial (i.e., larger than brigade-level) permanent NATO deployments in Eastern Europe. U.S. forces in Poland remain on a rotational basis, and the forthcoming German brigade, even if permanently stationed in Lithuania, is still presented as a non-substantial force, within agreed limits.

Eastern flank members have repeatedly called for the Act to be formally declared null and void, arguing that it creates a two-tiered NATO in which where some countries are less defended than others. Their calls have met stiff resistance from certain allies, and the Act still remains.

I agree with @kajakallas that the EU should become a beacon of freedom. So when do we start?
Here I offer six ways to actually light the beacon and step into the role history has chosen for us. Our response to the current uncertainty can be firm and long term. A thread.🧵1/17 Some Europeans still hope that Washington’s rhetoric is just noise, perhaps Trump and his team genuinely want to pressure allies into doing more, and once Europe proves itself, things will “go back to normal.”
But we shouldn't bet on that, and we don't have time to wait.🧵2/17

The Truman Doctrine, based on helping free peoples to resist autocrats, was US policy from 1947 until 2025. Now the Trump Doctrine seems to say the opposite—that US national security will benefit from helping autocrats fight against free people.🧵1/6
👇article link in comments Why would Trump change the rules so radically? One theory is that he believes that the world should be ruled by strongmen, specifically himself, Putin, and Xi. In this world Trump can use force instead of diplomacy, he can justify grabbing Canada, Greenland and Panama.🧵2/6

It looks as if Europe has lost belief in itself, lost belief in its power, forgotten that we can actually change things, that we can actually win if we try, in Georgia, in Ukraine, in all the countries that were promised a path to accession to the EU.🧵1/6 In Tbilisi I met with the relatives of political prisoners and heard their shocking stories. Let that sink in. An EU accession country is holding political prisoners. Young people, not even 20 years old, have sentences of 7 to 10 years. How could we let this happen?🧵2/6

The question of Ukraine joining NATO is when, not if. And that was agreed by ALL allies, during extensive discussions at the NATO Summits in Bucharest, Vilnius and Washington. I don’t recall members reconvening to ratify any backtracking since then.🧵1/5 Did @SecGenNATO, whose job it is to represent ALL allies, yesterday tacitly adopt Trump’s unilateral position without seeking the endorsement of other members? I hope not, because that is not how an alliance should work.🧵2/5

The Trump-Putin Pact already exists, and we should act accordingly. There are some things we will never change with nice words or smart clothing. If you are worried about those things, you should understand where Trump's tactics come from. From Russia.
A thread. 🧵1/14 The fact that military assistance to Ukraine might have been cut before Zelensky’s meeting with Trump in the Oval Office—and only later reconnected—should serve as an example of the current mindset in Washington.🧵2/14

We said “as long as it takes,” and well, it's gonna take a bit longer. Europe doesn’t need to back down now, not for Putin, not for Trump, not for anyone else who tests us. We can step up and stand firm. Here’s how:🧵1/8 🇪🇺Push back.
The US is important but not omnipotent. Zelenskyy proved that pushing back can work. Firmness commands respect.🧵2/8

I want to tell you a story. In 2015, I was in a Lithuanian city of Panevežys, standing with the locals, watching a military parade. But this was no ordinary parade, because marching alongside the Lithuanian troops were our American allies.🧵1/16 Not long after Russia annexed Crimea, in an impressive show of solidarity, Bradleys, Humvees, and Abrams rolled through Lithuanian streets that, just a quarter of a century earlier had been under occupation by the Soviet Union.🧵2/16

On a cold December evening in 2021, during an OSCE meeting in Stockholm, Lavrov outlined what he called “a new security architecture” for Europe. And Trump, knowingly or otherwise, might now be implementing those plans.🧵1/5 Apart from the usual nonsense about biolabs and nukes, Lavrov demanded that for stability in Europe, NATO must go back to its 1997 borders, retreating from everything except East Germany. So why wouldn’t Putin ask for this in Riyadh? It seems much more than likely.🧵2/5

Once again I am leaving the Munich Security Conference in a low mood. Amongst all the noise, the US signalled their plans for Europe, so things are becoming clearer. But things are clearly not good.
This is what we now know, and what we now have to do about it:🧵1/17 Ukraine can no longer rely on US assistance. The US President wants a deal, and he wants it fast. Fast deals cost more for the buyer, but the US is not willing to foot the bill. So, ultimately, Ukraine will have to pay the price.🧵2/17

🧵1/6
Europe won't survive sleeping through another wake-up call. We should jump out of bed and throw on a shirt. We should do what we can, with what we’ve got. And we’ve got a lot. Here's how to step things up as the US steps down: 🧵2/6
Ukraine’s full integration into the EU has to start now, in 2025, not 2030. Alongside economic benefits, the EU can also serve as a deterrence umbrella, and Ukraine should be under it.

President Trump put Putin in a tough spot by issuing an ultimatum. I'm sure this is not the way Putin expected things to work.🧵1/4 Now Putin has to choose - accept that he fears new sanctions because his economy is a shambles, or prove that his imperialist ambitions will not be limited by these demands.🧵2/4

Bloomberg reports that the EU is considering dropping its @wto case against China due to a "lack of evidence" that China's sudden halt in trade with Lithuania was retribution for supporting Taiwan. Dropping the case is a bad idea, but don't worry, it gets worse.🧵1/6 Withdrawing without even waiting for the official ruling means abandoning the defence of the single market, accepting China's argument and allowing a precedent to be set. China could then attack any other country in the same way.🧵2/6

So… what can you do with a nuclear bully?
1. Provide protection to the victims
2. Punish escalation with escalation
🧵1/7 If a country does not have the protection of its own nukes, or the nukes of friendly allies, unfriendly nuclear powers will come along and threaten it into submission. Bullies attack the unprotected.
🧵2/7

🧵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.👇

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

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

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