So a new article on "murky ethics" and the Russo-Ukrainian War has dropped from Professor Walt. I have some thoughts. A thread (1/n) foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/22/ukr… Walt recognizes that Russia is to blame for this war. But he also only focuses on ethics in a small prism. For him, the ethics, that of a forever war, and the continued suffering of Ukrainians as a result of this war, is something that makes ethics "murky." (2/n)

So you want to talk about peace in Ukraine. Here’s a quick primer regarding the issues at play if you want your ideas to be taken seriously. (1/n) First, full disclosure, I have been clear about my position on peace. I think it is unlikely in the near future. I write so here and explain why: (2/n)theconversation.com/calls-for-peac…

Had this piece in the Conversation pass my twitter feed. A brief thread in response to what I feel is a key flaw in this piece, while rescuing a legitimate point this article makes for all those desiring lasting peace re: the Russo-Ukrainian War: theconversation.com/despite-the-wa… The article wants to make a point that Russia can't feel disconnected from Europe. That this will stand in the way of lasting peace. It rails against black and white thinking and calls for Europe to extend an olive branch to Russia to win over the Russian public. (2/n)

Another take, in May 2023, that shows a lack of understanding of Russia's War in Ukraine. Here - I'll summarize in following tweets so you don't have to read it. (1/n) NATO Expansion caused Russian aggression. Eastern European defense demands don't matter. US caused Euromaidan. The US is ensuring NATO involvement. US did the same in Cuban Missile Crisis so Russia should be allowed to do same. Spheres of influence.

As we slowly reach 11 months since Russia’s escalation in its war against Ukraine, I figure I should update my thread on statements about the war in response to recent discussions. 🧵 1) Russia remains committed to a maximalist approach with regard to Ukraine. It attempted to take Kyiv early in its escalation, including targeting Zelenskyy, for imperialistic aims. It has refused to consider a peace where it does not keep its "annexed" territories.

With Putin, again, claiming a willingness to entertain "peace negotiations," let's clarify what this likely means. Russia started the war; it will likely accept no blame. Instead, it likely will want to freeze the conflict, maintain control of Ukr. territory it has. (1/8) To stress, we already know what this means for people in occupied Ukrainian territory. We have enough information to know the atrocities are being committed there by Russians. Nowhere has Russia stopped with its maximalist demands re: Ukraine (2/8)

As of late, there has been a growing push by Russian officials, namely Lavrov, to build Russian relationships with the Global South and draw on the legacy of Soviet support for decolonization and anti-imperialism. 🧵 There's a long history here and it actually goes a bit farther back than the Cold War.

So I've just read Mearsheimer's latest piece. Some thoughts. 🧵 Mearsheimer still has not fully understood what is happening in Ukraine. The points about fears of nuclear escalation are understandable. But he suggests this is the main form of 🇷🇺 escalation. That's simply failing to see the reality in Ukraine.

In the interest of providing some quick statements to clarify information about Russia’s War in Ukraine, without continuing to amplify terrible takes, please consider this simple thread to help. 🧵 1. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not because of NATO. Putin has made this clear repeatedly. He wants to take control of Ukraine. There were plans to build a Greater Russia. This is a neo-colonial war. The West didn't force Ukraine to be anti-Russian either.