This is exactly right. (Nor is it an accident. The parallels exist in all the right wing ethno-nationalist movements supported by Putin from the Brexit crowd to Orban in Hungary to the right in France, etc.)
What I do not think is fully appreciated quite yet is what a catastrophe a full on invasion of democratic Ukraine and the kind of human toll U.S. officials and expert predict will follow will ultimately be for those movements, notably for the Trumpists here in the U.S.
Trump's naive stance, embraced by the GOP, that the Cold War was long past and it was high time we were friends with Putin, is going to be starkly revealed to be not only profoundly misguided but actively dangerous. Same with his stance to gut NATO, pull US troops out of Europe.
It is one thing for the GOP to align to a far away, malevolent but generally inert Putin. It is another for them to align w/a war criminal, enemy of democracy and perpetrator of a major war against an innocent state and the stability and foundational values of Europe & the West.
A Putin invasion of Ukraine would be a catastrophe for that country (even greater than it has been since 2014). But it will also reveal the cynicism and anti-Americanism of Trump and the GOP and the material danger they have posed and still pose to the U.S.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm lying awake here tonight because I honestly can't fathom how we have gotten to the point that the leader of the GOP, the last SecState, some of the party's most vocal members & a major US TV network all are actively taking Russia's side in a conflict with America & the West.
Yes, I lived through the 2016 campaign and all four years of Trump placing Putin ahead of our intel community, praising Putin, defending Russian positions. And yet here we are at a moment of great crisis, a threat to the order Americans & allies fought and died for.
And Trump and Fox and the rest are actually praising the man who has threatened the entire international order, who has put tens of millions of innocents at risk. They're defending him. They're spreading his lies. They're betraying our country and our values.
A rebuttal to the idea that the West contributed to the current crisis by supporting NATO expansion. 1.) It is naive. It accepts Putin's false rationale for his action. He obliterated this argument when he made his real argument: That Ukraine does not exist & is part of Russia.
2.) Putin's argument that the historical boundaries of the Russian empire or Soviet Union should fall under Moscow's control only underscores how important it was that former Soviet states were able to join NATO and gain its protections.
The reason Ukraine was targeted was because it was not a member of NATO not because it was. It was vulnerable and Putin, a predator, sought and seeks to take advantage of that.
The easiest job in the world is foreign policy critic. I know because I not only play one on TV...it's what I do. No one gets everything right. No one controls all variables. There are always complications and options that could've, should've been considered.
But as easy as it is to critique and say, "I'm smarter, if only they'd done it my way," it is almost impossibly hard to actually conduct effective foreign policy, especially for a superpower like the U.S. There are so many moving parts.
There are so many institutional hurdles. There are so many political obstacles. There are so many factors and egos and allied interests and variables to contend with. Especially on big, fast-breaking issues of global concern.
The @POTUS response to what he accurately condemned as Russia's flagrant violation of international law was strong and smart. It was made stronger and smarter by the coordination with the wide-ranging sanctions and responses of our allies in Europe.
This was not just an example of a good performance by the president or presentation of professional crafted well-calibrated set of measures, it was also the result of tireless diplomacy and behind the scenes preparation.
The decision to move forces into the Baltics and to underscore our commitment to helping Ukraine defend itself also added an important and necessary security dimension to the measures. And there are still very substantial and meaningful measures we can introduce if needed.
So, what is wrong with saying, "International law demands Ukraine be allowed to determine its own future. So long as the people of Ukraine seek to preserve their independence, we will work with our allies to provide the support they need to do so. And...
...we will use all tools available to us to penalize Russia for violating Ukraine's independence. That includes not just sanctions, but sweeping sanctions. And not just temporary sanctions, but long-term sanctions that grow longer/deeper the longer Russia's aggression lasts.
We will seek to systematically isolate Russia within the international community and limit their ability to participate in international forums. We will target Putin and those closest to them, reveal their corruption, freeze their assets, make it impossible for them to travel.
While I appreciate the swiftness of the WH response re: sanctions on the territories recognized by Putin, I'm afraid they are inadequate and inappropriate in several respects. They are likely to be of only minimal economic consequence. Further...
...they punish the people of the territories rather than the wrong-doers, Vladimir Putin and his government. They also suggest that our severe sanctions will also come not unless there is an invasion--even if Putin unilaterally claims what would be one of the goals of invasion.
The threat of force should not be seen as an acceptable or "minor" international offense in a case like this. (You don't need to fire a gun for the penalties for armed robbery to kick in.) Proportionality is good. But, this feels light to me.