I don't think the craziness of DNI Ratcliffe's letter is being properly appreciated. This action is outrageous and dangerous on so many levels. THREAD 1/. judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
First, the DNI released information/disinformation about an American from a foreign enemy! Why would the USG ever release information about assessments of Americans obtained from any foreign government, let alone from a hostile country? That is nuts. 2/
Second, as I know bitterly well from first-hand experience, Russian intel agents are masters at disinformation. Putin wanted to Trump to win, and Clinton to lose. Of course, they would release such disinformation. You don't need a PhD in Russian studies to figure that out. 3/
BTW, when I worked at the White House and as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, I used to say utter nonsense all the time on open lines being listened to by Russian intelligence agents. I knew they were listening, so I purposely said untrue things on the phone to confuse them. SOP. 4/
Third, what is the American national security interest being advanced by the release of this disinformation/information about 2016 a month before our presidential election in 2020? The answer -- none. 5/
And remember, the DNI has decided to NOT to release information about Russian meddling in our election right now. Voters have a right to know. But the DNI has decided otherwise. 6/
This is dangerous, folks, We cannot allow our Intelligence Community to become a propaganda instrument for a political party. 7/. END THREAD.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Skeptics argue that Putin will never accept Ukraine’s joining NATO. But Ukraine and NATO members do not need to ask for Putin’s permission. Putin has no place in negotiations between Ukraine and the alliance. Allowing him to disrupt or put off these deliberations would be a sign of American weakness not only to Moscow but also to Beijing." THREAD 1/
"These skeptics also grossly overestimate Putin’s concern about Ukraine’s joining NATO. Putin did not invade Ukraine in 2022 to stop NATO’s expansion. In the run-up to 2022, NATO membership for Ukraine was a distant dream, and everyone in Brussels, Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington knew it. Putin’s invasion had other objectives: to unite Ukrainians and Russians into one Slavic nation, overthrow Ukraine’s democratic and Western-oriented government, and demilitarize the country. Putin barely raised an eyebrow when Finland and Sweden joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, even though Finland shares an 830-mile border with Russia. His war has driven Ukraine ever closer to NATO, not pulled it away." 2/
"But if the Russians insist that Ukraine’s joining the alliance threatens Russia—and they will—Trump can explain to Putin that NATO membership will constrain Ukraine. Zelensky, of course, will never formally recognize the Russian annexation of occupied Ukrainian territory. Yet the possibility of NATO membership could lead him to agree to a formula in which Kyiv accepts that it will seek the reunification of Ukraine only through peaceful means. West Germany and South Korea agreed to similar terms in return for defense treaties with NATO and the United States." 3/
"It is hard to ignore the growing sense of deterministic resignation among foreign policy leaders in the United States and worldwide about the end of the American era." THREAD 1/
"Trump’s success at the ballot box has led many former internationalists to conclude that American leaders have lost faith in global engagement, multilateralism, and democracy promotion, and that U.S. voters would rather turn inward and go it alone—especially when it comes to trade and immigration." 2/
"A new conventional wisdom is settling in, which takes as a given that Americans no longer care about cooperating with allies, participating in international institutions, or engaging on moral issues, such as unjust wars, imperial annexation, democracy, or human rights. Some in sorrow and others in joy have concluded that, after a century of global leadership, Americans are reverting to their natural and traditional state of isolationism." 3/
George H.W. Bush had the support of both the US Congress (majority votes in both houses) and the UNSC (UNSCR 678) before he launched his attack against Iraq in 1991. THREAD 1/
Clinton won the support of NATO allies, who voted unanimously to endorse US air strikes against Serbia in 1999. 2/
George W. Bush had the support of both the Senate (77-23) and the House (296-133) to invade Iraq in 2003. 3/
"After just a few weeks in office, the list of Trump’s concessions to Russia is truly extraordinary. It includes (1) intelligence sharing with Ukraine has been discontinued; (2) USAID assistance for Ukraine, including funding to repair its energy grid and for anti-corruption programs, has been discontinued;" 1/THREAD
"(3) U.S. funding for Russian civil society and independent media operating in exile has been stopped; (4) diplomatic relations with Moscow have been restored, beginning with a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago;" 2/
"and (5) in radical reversal of past policy, the United States voted with Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and a handful of other rogue autocracies against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine." 3/
"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/