When I served as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Putin's propagandists made the crazy claim that Obama sent me to Moscow to foment revolution. They cited this academic article from 2006 as "proof" that I was a professional "revolutionary." journalofdemocracy.org/articles/trans… THREAD 1/
Now, pro-Trump conspiracy theorists are making the same crazy claim about me, only this time my objective is a color revolution against the U.S. government! And now they too are citing the same @JoDemocracy article as evidence! Coincidence or coordination? 2/
Glad to be expanding readership of the Journal of Democracy -- one of the most important journals in my profession -- among Trump fans. But writing as an academic about democratic breakthroughs or color revolutions does not make one a professional revolutionary. 3/
And on academic footnote -- revolutions only occur in autocracies, against dictators. (There is a big academic literature on this subject.) The United States is still a democracy. 4/
To state the obvious, I do not support revolutions or coups. Im a militant defender of democracy. American voters - not Putin or anyone else - should decide who will be president next year (but our 2 million soldiers, CIA agents, diplomats, etc. get to vote too). 5/
As I wrote a few months ago, "Trump and Biden must pledge publicly and unequivocally that they will accept the results of an election, broadly judged to have been free and fair." So should Trump & Biden supporters. 6/ END THREAD. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"When you add it all up – Trump’s concessions to Putin, insults to Zelenskyy, extortion of Ukraine, bad negotiation tactics and refusal to enforce a peace deal – there’s no evidence that Trump is serious about mediating a peace, and there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that all he cares about is courting Putin." 1/ THREAD
"I hope I’m wrong, because trying to appease Putin and abandon our democratic partners in Ukraine will have terrible implications for American security interests not just in Europe, but also worldwide. If Putin gets away with it, why wouldn’t China’s Xi Jinping invade and take over Taiwan? I hope Trump and his team will eventually realize how weak they will look if they capitulate to Putin and throw a democratic partner under the bus." 2/
"But, if I am right, then the rest of America who cares about freedom, who wants an enduring peace in Ukraine, who does not wish to ally with the autocrats of the world must stop Trump’s reckless foreign policy." 3/
I hope @SecRubio and @MikeWaltz47 have studied Mearsheimer. This paragraph in the thread below is particularly relevant for today. It's Realism 101. 1/ THREAD
“Appeasement contradicts the dictates of offensive realism and therefore it is a fanciful and dangerous strategy. It is unlikely to transform a dangerous foe into a kinder gentler opponent much less a peace loving state. Indeed, appeasement is likely to whet not shrink and aggressors appetite for conquest.” 2/
“Because great powers are programmed for offense, and appease state is likely to interpret any power concession by another state as a sign of weakness -- as evidence that the appeaser is unwilling to defend the balance of power the appeased state is then likely to continue pushing for more concessions.” 3/
Zelensky has thanked Trump, Congress, and the American people many times.
But let's be clear: when Trump and Vance said that THEY are trying to help Ukraine right now, and need to be thanked for the work personally, there are reasons to wonder. 1/ THREAD
1. Team Trump has told Ukraine that they have to give up territory to Russia. Zelenskyy should thank them for that? 2/
2. Trump has told Ukraine that they cannot join NATO. Zelenskyy should thank them for that? 3/
Lots of folks, including in the Trump administration, invoking "realism" as the reason why Putin needs to be appeased. I hope they have read this scholar, one of the most important realist scholars of our era. 1/THREAD
"Appeasement contradicts the dictates of offensive realism and, therefore, is a fanciful and dangerous strategy. It is unlikely to transform a dangerous force into a kinder, gentler opponent, much less a peace-loving state." 2/
"Indeed, appeasement is likely to whet, not shrink, an aggressor’s appetite for conquest. … Because great powers are programmed for offense, an appeased state is likely to interpret a power concession by another state as a sign of weakness…" 3/
So, let's summarize the negotiations for peace in Ukraine so far -- who got what in the last week. THREAD 1/
Concessions given or floated to Putin: (1) Ukrainian territory, (2) no Ukraine membership in NATO, (3) US withdrawing forces from Europe, (4) elections in Ukraine BEFORE real negotiations, (5) lifting of sanctions, (6) normalizing US-Russian relations, ... 2/
(7) lecture to Europeans about their bad democracies from VP Vance without a word of criticism about Russian dictatorship, (8) blaming Ukraine for starting the war, (9) falsely claiming that Zelensky has a 4% approval rating. 3/
The new Trump team has a very confused posture when it comes to sovereignty. On the one hand, they preach sovereignty, America First, no international constraints, for the US etc. 1/ THREAD
One the other hand, they tell Europeans how they need to change their policies on censorship and immigration. 2/
And they threaten to annex Greenland, Panama Canal, and Gaza! 3/