However, ultimately, Ukraine is a large landmass that was invaded by a complacent, lockdown-riddled autocrat who didn't believe it was even a country. The Baltic States are much smaller and even Putin doesn't expect to be greeted as a de-Nazifying liberator there.
So, yes, it's true if the analysis is 'what does Europe need to do to "win a war" with Putin'. But we should be clear that while the last 3 years have been an avoidable and catastrophic failure for Russia, they have been an avoidable and catastrophic failure for Europe, with huge costs for Ukraine.
They were avoidable because we have had a series of alarms since the killing of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and we didn't respond to them. That failure to strengthen and deter means that thousand of Ukrainians have died.
Really? Even if European militaries had been larger and better prepared there would have been similar questions about whether to risk direct conflict with Russia in defending a non NATO country. Looks different with benefit of hindsight.
The test for Europe is to strengthen sufficiently not that a war for Europe ends in defeat for Russia, but that no other state pays as high a cost for our failure as Ukraine.
I went as Europe Minister to support the Orange revolution in Kyiv in 2005 when Ukraine rose up against puppet president backed by Putin. But Ukraine oligarchs no different from Russian comrades. Corruption worse than in Russia. Sarkozy and Merkel accepted Crimea annexation of w Cameron approval1/2
Yes. Nearly said the other day that the death of AL should have been our wakeup call. It was painfully obvious to anyone whose head wasn't lodged up their arse at the time. The sheer complacency of the 2000s is the thing I find most baffling and frustrating to account for.
Comments
I found this v. interesting
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewprlevi.bsky.social/post/3liwjxufs7k25
The Nazis only put the elderly into the front line when the war was already lost. Putin’s Volkssturm looks like an equally desperate measure