As Boris & I wrote in 2012, with Navalny's concurrence, foreign pressure like the Magnitsky Act is pro-Russian. Alexei said, "It helps defend us from the criminals who kill our citizens, steal our money, and hide it abroad." wsj.com/articles/SB100…
Many European leaders prefer to leave flowers for dead Russian opposition leaders instead of listening to them while they're alive. In the US, post-McCain, global human rights have become a partisan political show at best.
There are exceptions, and I've been honored to be invited to testify on Putin's Russia & foreign interference in the US, Canada, and the UK. It's all connected. You cannot deter Putin's hostile acts without threatening his grip in Russia.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This disgraceful ICC decision is the last nail in the coffin of the international order based on Yalta-Potsdam arrangements. Politicizing & criminalizing self-defense against terrorism also discredits previous judgments against real war criminals like Putin.
I'm no Netanyahu supporter, but like any sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend itself from existential threats. The ICC, like the UN, would like Israel to just disappear, which is exactly what would happen if it stopped fighting for its survival.
Many replies fall into the same accusation of Israeli "genocide" in Gaza, which would count as the most poorly executed in history were it true. Israel could flatten the entire region in a week. Meanwhile, Hamas still refuses to release the hostages.
Exactly. Escalation has come from Russia for over 10 years because the West has not provided Ukraine with the weapons to deter, to halt, and to win. We have the benefit of hindsight now but still pretend to be blind.
If you think the nuclear threat is greater now than 5 months or 5 years ago, your case against Western arms has been refuted. Russia has escalated, bombing Ukrainian civilians daily. Iranian weapons, NK troops, Chinese supplies. Due not to Western arms, but the lack of them.
Putin is a KGB thug & the world's richest man. He is very cautious because the consequences for losing power are fatal. He attacked Ukraine because he needs constant conflict to distract from Russia's collapse. He thought it would be easy. Ukrainians proved him wrong.
Gabbard would be too much. Hesgeth may not be typically qualified but he's not a cheerleader for mass murdering dictators and I doubt Trump wants to pick such an bad fight with the Senate.
Musk's "efficiency" project is a bigger question. Is Congress going to allow one of the largest govt contractors to head a new department? Will it sit outside or above public agencies? As we learned in Russia, privatization is often little more than creating unaccountable power.
It’s not that they think they wouldn’t be confirmed, at least not in most cases. It’s that they want to plant a big flag early that there will be no transparency or oversight of Trump's wishes and power. Everything will be like this.
Putin steadily reshaped Russia's fragile democracy with the willing aid of the Russian Duma (Congress) and courts who didn’t want to cross him. Power is voluntarily ceded to the president and an autocratic vertical is created. Federal over state power next.
Same with all the constitutional changes that Putin made to cement his power. Why would a dictator bother with laws and elections? They want the argument of "well, everything was done legally so it’s fine". Autocrats adore sham democracy.
I’ll be writing on the election soon, but a few thoughts. Beyond the tactical, the resounding result is more evidence that far-right success follows far-left overreach. The media normalized Trump, but also downplayed how strongly many Americans disliked leftist agitation. 1/7
I.e., the prevailing tone was that leftist social agendas were simply progress, and anyone who didn’t embrace them was a fascist or dinosaur. But even if that’s an argument to be had on a talk show, it provokes moderate resentment and is a losing proposition electorally. 2/7
Harris was what we thought she was in 2020, an ineffectual candidate who only had a chance because she was running against Trump. The Dems missed the chance to find a stronger one due to Biden’s refusal to step down, as I proposed in October 2023. 3/7wsj.com/articles/biden…
American elections vote for people, not parties. This isn’t complicated. I supported GOP candidates almost exclusively before Trump, even meeting with some of their campaigns. Trump and the MAGA GOP have nothing to do with those good men or their policies.
If you had bothered to learn anything about me, my background, and my decades of public writing and speaking on politics, or even read my article you replied to, you would realize how dangerous Trump must be for me to endorse Harris. But Trump makes it obvious and necessary.
This list of questions are about politics and social tides. What a luxury to have those arguments, to vote your beliefs and opinions! In 2028, if the GOP has recovered its sanity, perhaps I will support Harris's challenger, as I supported Romney, McCain, and Haley.