Calling people "alarmist" is usually just a way of trying to discredit them, demonstrated by the fact that it goes on even after they've been proven correct.
When they cannot answer your arguments or refute the facts, they attack your tone and tactics. But that's not what they really want. They want you to stop, to shut up, to be ignored.
If you weren't right, they wouldn't care. When I joined others in Russia in 2005 to warn that Putin was creating a dictatorship, I was called hysterical, alarmist, etc. Instead of stopping as it all came true, the attacks continued.
This includes the supposed allies who warn that yes, you might be right, but your tone is scary, your words too harsh, you might alienate people. No. Going to sleep in the snow of diplomatic blather is the real danger.
The problem isn't people being scared. The problem is people not being scared enough. I wish deep concerns were enough to inspire the bold action often required in today's besieged world. The fear comes when it's too late for the easy path.
I go on TV and shout about the murders of my friends, the slaughter of innocents in war, and am told to calm down. Why am I angry? No, why aren't you? Now America is fighting to save its democracy, its soul, and it's not time to calm down. Sound the alarms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pres. Biden's speech about leaving Afghanistan and nation-building was at least consistent until he said "human rights will be the center of our foreign policy." How, when the bad guys use force and don't care about your diplomacy?
Non-military action is vital to promote human rights, and can be very effective. Economic tools and cultural norms are essential. But when the enemies of the free world realize you've taken force off the table, you have 15 years of democracy in retreat.
When Assad's regime was crumbling, Putin sent fighter jets to support him. Obama sent John Kerry. Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Belarus, Afghanistan—they use force when they know the free world will not even agree on sanctions.
A tragedy and a shame. Many will be slaughtered and millions will be cast back into the Taliban dark ages. And it shows America is a untrustworthy ally, in contrast with dictators like Putin who show loyalty to their vile peers and allies. npr.org/2021/08/08/102…
I supported Biden over Trump without reservations in 2020. He had the chance to set America back on the path of standing for good, for the values of its founding. Instead, he is charting a course for the most defeatist and defeated US foreign policy in memory.
We saw in Obama the failure of trying to be friends with everyone. We saw in Trump a transactional, valueless president who used foreign policy for personal gain. If America is to mean anything more than cliches about freedom, it must show it in its actions.
Germany & US collude with Putin to undermine Ukrainian, EU, and global security for a pipeline & cash. Steinmeier, Merkel & Maas, who said appeasing Putin would be "good for Russian civil society" before Navalny was nearly murdered and jailed. dw.com/en/just-in-us-…
Whenever Putin attacks, I'm asked "what do we do?" You act before there's an attack. Establish deterrence, create leverage against things Putin cares about. You can't reinforce him with deals and then act surprised when he attacks again.
Putin needs foreign conflict and chaos to stay in power in Russia. He can't stop. He also needs lucrative deals with the West to solidify his standing as guarantor of his oligarchs' fortunes & families abroad. Deals like Nord Stream 2.
Putin promotes these attacks and won't end them unless there is action. Hitting Russian infrastructure would be cruel and pointless. It's already a mess and Putin wouldn't care. Go after their money.
If a few billion dollars of looted assets disappeared from Putin & his oligarch pals' accounts, these ransomware attacks would stop. The question has always been if US & EU are willing to do what is necessary to defend themselves.
Responding diplomatically is a waste of time and law enforcement is limited against state actors and those with state protection. And they know it. New mechanisms are needed to meet new threats, or you keep losing.
Putin boasts that he could have sunk a British warship and nothing would have happened. Xi Jinping says he'll take Taiwan, an independent nation, when he wants. Testing the waters for a response. And?
Everyone saying "it's just words" will act surprised when action follows words, as it did in Ukraine and Hong Kong. Deterrence is based on standing up to the smallest aggressions to prevent bigger ones.
Putin and Xi know well that the West has the power to stand up to them. So when they choose not to, it's interpreted as a green light, and the "grave concerns" as performance.
Joke on Russian internet: "Putin showing Merkel and Macron the salary charts of Rosneft and Gazprom."
Dependence on dictatorships like Putin's Russia is a package deal. You can't separate business from human rights and defending your democracy. The corruption spreads like a gas leak until it explodes.
Europe can't separate energy or business from politics when Putin won't. The list of ways to defend and deter includes "dictatorship substitution". I wrote about it specifically re energy in 2015: energyfuse.org/garry-kasparov…