Ian Bond
@cerianbond.bsky.social
33K followers 11K following 1.6K posts
Deputy director, Centre for European Reform, London @centreeuropeanref.bsky.social . Supporter of democracy, the rule of law, the EU & Ukraine. Opponent of authoritarianism, corruption & Putin's Russia.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
cerianbond.bsky.social
Invading Ukraine seems (at least in retrospect) more than a small risk! But I agree about the risks associated with drones over NATO territory.
Reposted by Ian Bond
nigelgould-davies.bsky.social
I agree. I think Russia is worried about adverse trends, and this is why it is pushing harder against Europe. The goal is to shift the balance of resolve in its favour in order to undermine the balance of resources tilting against it @keirgiles.bsky.social
cerianbond.bsky.social
I think we're beyond the stage of the war when oligarchs might remove Putin to save their assets in the West (maybe that was never realistic). The value of tightening sanctions & export controls is to make it harder for Russia to finance the war & acquire foreign tech & components for arms.
cerianbond.bsky.social
I'm sure he does want to divert weapons & other support away from Ukraine. But he also probes NATO's eastern flank to see what happens. The rhetoric he & other senior officials use about Poland, the Baltic states & Finland resembles that used about Ukraine in the years leading up to the invasion.
cerianbond.bsky.social
I agree. I've seen Putin described as risk-averse; I don't think that's right. He takes risks that other leaders wouldn't, but only when he assesses that the likelihood of an effective response is low. The West has yet to change his assessment that he can keep pushing us back.
keirgiles.bsky.social
Here is @nigelgould-davies.bsky.social on Russia’s disruption campaign against Europe. I’m not sure I would be so optimistic on the Kremlin being worried by US & EUR behaviour, but the conclusion is unshakeable: absent a serious response, this will get much worse.

www.iiss.org/online-analy...
Screenshot from linked article, saying Western officials are puzzled, but they shouldn’t be.
Reposted by Ian Bond
zecsaky.bsky.social
Here is something on Czechia's elections and the implications for the EU from me:
cerianbond.bsky.social
I’ve noticed that a lot of people write “ECHR” for the Convention & “ECtHR” for the Court, which helps. But it won’t do anything about the determination of some people to believe that if something starts with “European” it must be another devilish EU plot.
cerianbond.bsky.social
UK courts’ job is to ensure govt only does things legally. Occasionally ppl think UK courts & govt erred, & appeal to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. On avg, since 2012 the Court has ruled against UK govt 4 times a year. 3. If death penalty deters, why is US murder rate 4x UK’s? 2/2
cerianbond.bsky.social
On the basis that you might be serious about this: 1. The ECHR & the Court have nothing to do with ‘Brussels’. The ECHR was to a large extent the work of former Nuremberg prosecutor & later (hard-line) Tory Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe. 2. UK has its own laws on deportation. 1/2
cerianbond.bsky.social
But the Court was established by the Convention to rule on "all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto", & parties to the Convention "undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court". So the UK can't reject one without rejecting both.
cerianbond.bsky.social
I think that's unfair to Paxman, whose mantra was "Why is this lying liar lying to me?" - perhaps excessively cynical, but at least resulting in him challenging politicians. It's the unwillingness of his successors to challenge even obvious lies that's so destructive.
cerianbond.bsky.social
Just heard Chris Philp on BBC’s Today programme explaining why the Tories want to leave the ECHR. He claimed ECHR isn’t mentioned in Belfast Agreement - which is simply untrue. The UK govt agreed to incorporate it into NI law & give direct access to the courts (Strand 3). Why no BBC fact-check?
cerianbond.bsky.social
Sounds like a recipe for war crimes - or encouragement to commit them. It will potentially make it much harder for the US to fight alongside allies: I remember tortuous debates in NATO in the late 1980s on differing US & allied rules of engagement - & what Hegseth says implies a much bigger gap.
atrupar.com
Hegseth: "We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement."
cerianbond.bsky.social
An extremely helpful thread, summarising the threat to subsea infrastructure from Russia, and providing links to useful reporting and analysis. In sum: a serious threat, about which the UK needs to do more than it has done so far.
fascinatorfun.bsky.social
Have you ever heard of GUGI? Russia’s directorate of deep sea “research”? Military Unit 40056

I hadn’t, but I have been aware of the threat of aggression by cutting of undersea cables.

There has been a resurgence of activity of GUGI - including over areas where UK-US intelligence cables lie
cerianbond.bsky.social
Good news, and a setback for Moscow, which invested heavily in defeating PAS. But PAS will end up with a very narrow majority. The EU needs to do more to show Moldovans the benefits of aligning with Brussels rather than Moscow.
kradke.bsky.social
#Moldova
With more than 90% of votes counted, the ruling pro-EU Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) has won 46% of ballots versus 27% for the pro-Russian Patriotic Bloc, according to the country's Central Electoral Commission.
p.dw.com/p/51CZj
PAS maintains lead with more than 90% of the votes counted – DW – 09/28/2025
p.dw.com
cerianbond.bsky.social
Good question. If the guarantees are from countries with a common interest in deterring Russsia, yes.
Reposted by Ian Bond
cerianbond.bsky.social
This is indeed a big and welcome development - though I suspect that $140 billion won't last as long as we think, given Ukraine's needs.
sandertordoir.bsky.social
Boom. There it is.

Europe is on the cusp of making €140 billion available to fund Ukraine’s defence for years to come, lending against Russias assets.

Chancellor Merz is stepping up to the plate — singing a very hymn from his overly cautious predecessor.

1/2
cerianbond.bsky.social
Excellent thread.
ruthdeyermond.bsky.social
One last thing on Trump's embarrassing UN speech: watching it - in particular, listening to him read it - makes it clear that Trump has absolutely no interest in foreign policy. The only time he seemed remotely engaged was when he was complaining or bragging. That matters.🧵
cerianbond.bsky.social
It's a good piece, & an honest one. It also comes to similar conclusions to @aslak.bsky.social's piece on the trade deal: www.cer.eu/insights/def... ; and mine on building a European defence organisation outside both NATO & the EU www.cer.eu/insights/nat... .
cerianbond.bsky.social
I think this is the right response. Trump will change his mind again (probably after talking to Putin or Orban); & in any case he offered no new US help, in terms of sanctions or military aid. As for "I wish both Countries well" - does that sound like someone working hard for the victory of an ally?
christopherjm.ft.com
“What is new in Trump’s statements made today or what do they mean for us? Absolutely nothing,” said Yaroslav Zheleznyak, a Ukrainian MP. “And what should we expect next? Also nothing.”

On the Ukrainian and Russian reactions to Trump’s messages.
w/ @maxseddon.bsky.social
on.ft.com/3IdFawr
Ukrainians find no concrete support in Donald Trump’s warm words
US president’s claim that Kyiv could win back all its territory from Russia came with no economic or military help
on.ft.com