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
I remain skeptical that conditions are ripe for a deal. If Trump threatens to cut aid to Ukraine, Putin will be emboldened to keep fighting, not stop his invasion. But dont believe me. Read
John Mearsheimer. 1/ THREAD
Mearsheimer wrote in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,
"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. Indeed, appeasement is likely to whet, not shrink, an aggressor’s appetite for conquest. … " 2/
"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…The appeased stats are then likely to continue pushing for more concessions… In short, appeasement is likely to make a dangerous rival more, not less, dangerous. "(p. 164) 3/
"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." 1/ THREAD
"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." 2/
"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. " 3/
"Given his past skepticism about aid to Ukraine and NATO more generally, it will not be easy to persuade him to take this path. Such a deal, however, supports several of Trump’s objectives." THREAD 1/
By bringing Ukraine into NATO, Trump could achieve a significant victory for one of his foreign policy priorities: burden-sharing. After joining NATO, Ukraine’s armed forces would overnight become the best and most experienced European army in the alliance. Ukrainian soldiers could be deployed to other frontline states, allowing Washington to reduce its own troop commitments." 2/"
"Ukraine could also supply other NATO allies, especially those that share a border with Russia, with the air, sea, and land drones that the Ukrainian military has mastered in its defense of the country. Trump could explain to the American people that Ukraine’s membership in NATO would allow the United States to spend less on European defense and free up resources to contain China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Such a move should win the support of the many China hawks in Trump’s new administration." 3/
Before he leaves office, "President Biden must transfer all assets of the Russian Central Bank currently held in American banks to the government of Ukraine or an international foundation committed to Ukrainian reconstruction." 1/ THREAD
"These funds amount to some $300 billion, of which the most significant share has been seized by the Europeans. These funds should be transferred as soon as possible to help finance the Ukrainian government and reconstruction." 2/
"Considering that Russia’s unprovoked war has inflicted hundreds of billions of dollars of damage on the Ukrainian economy, it’s only just that the international community should impose some of these costs on the Russian state itself. How could any president or prime minister ever give these funds back to Putin?" 3/
Let's all stop repeating Putin's bs line about the "threat of Ukraine joining NATO" as the reason he was compelled to invade. Its complete hogwash. There is no data to support this hypothesis. THREAD 1/
I was in the Obama administration for the first 5 years. We had NO plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. Maybe we should have had a plan. But we did not. That is a fact. In 2010, Yanukovich was elected president & had no interest in pursuing a NATO invite. That is a fact too. 2/
Then Trump was in power from 2017-2021. Trump had NO plans to give an invite. He didnt even like NATO! He did not do a single thing to expand NATO to Ukraine. Absolutely nothing. That is a fact. 3/
I'm watching with elation the fall of Assad and his barbaric regime.
But also remembering in sorrow the many Syrians who needlessly lost their lives over the last decade because Putin, Iran, and Hezbollah propped up these killers, and we failed to stop them. 1/ THREAD
In my last book, From Cold War to Hot Peace, the longest chapter is called "Chasing Russians, Failing Syrians." In that chapter, I documented how we in the West tried but failed to get Putin to work with us to bring an end to the Syrian civil war. /2
We tried. On numerous occasions Obama tried to convince Putin to work us on a deal. (Most memorable was their meeting in Los Cabos in 2012 which was mostly about Syria.) Clinton & Kerry did the same with Lavrov. Others did too. 3/