We are witnessing, literally watching live, Putin commit genocide on an industrial scale in Ukraine while the most powerful military alliance in history stands aside. It's impossible not to be emotional, but let us also be rational and focus our rage on the facts. 1/13
Putin once again told Macron to go to hell, no surprise. NATO/EU has already told Putin they won't touch his forces, so why should he listen? Russia is lifting target limitations and the death toll is rising every hour and lack of water & electricity is critical. 2/13
No treaty forbids NATO nations from fighting to defend in Ukraine. It's a choice based on the risk of Putin going nuclear, many say. That arming Ukrainians is an acceptable risk of WWIII & the citizenship of the pilot or soldier changes Putin's nuclear calculus, or NATO's. 3/13
If they care so much about the fine print and think Putin does too, ask Zelensky to issue Ukrainian passports to any volunteer to fly in combat. Sell jets to Ukraine for €1 each and paint UKR flags on them. Do you think Putin will care? Is it worth the lives lost? 4/13
This is already World War III. Putin started it long ago & Ukraine is only the current front. He will escalate anyway, and it's even more likely if he succeeds in destroying Ukraine because you have again convinced him you won't stop him even though you could. 5/13
Biden & others insist NATO would retaliate should Putin attack Baltic members. Watching Ukraine, I am not sure of that at all, and Putin won't be either. If the calculation is about nuclear risk, it's no different over Estonia than Ukraine. Don't say "Putin would never". 6/13
If this sounds familiar, it's the same argument from 2014, when Putin invaded E Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It was too risky to stop him, I was told, as I pleaded for intervention and warned he would never stop there. Here we are, with bombs raining down. 7/13
Risk and costs are higher now because the "reasonable" people in the West always choose lower risk today to guarantee higher risk tomorrow. Clearing the UKR skies after a warning period is risky. Letting Putin destroy Ukraine is riskier, & a human and moral disaster. 8/13
There is no waiting this out. This isn't chess; there's no draw, no stalemate. Either Putin destroys Ukraine and eventually hits NATO with an even greater catastrophe, or Putin falls in Russia. He cannot be stopped with weakness. 9/13
The corridors to get weapons, food, and medicine in and refugees out are narrowing and can be closed. Putin can bomb the trains, close the borders with NATO nations. The odds of Russian forces hitting a NATO asset are increasing, and then what? Still watching? 10/13
If your answer is no, that if a wing of a RU jet crosses Polish airspace, of course NATO will engage immediately, ask why thousands of Ukrainians civilians dying first matters less than a treaty, and what that says to Putin. That you're honorable, or a fool? We know. 11/13
As I said in 2014 and a fateful week ago, the price of stopping a dictator always goes up. What would have been enough to stop Putin 8 years or 6 months or 2 weeks ago is not enough today, and the price will rise again tomorrow. Fight. Find a way. 12/13
Putin vows to exterminate Ukrainians while we watch. Ukraine did nothing wrong but try to join the democratic world that is now witnessing crimes against humanity in real time. Not unable. Unwilling. #CloseTheSky 13/13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
July 4 is about 1776, and I’m fond of posting quotes from and about the Founding Fathers, who hindsight confirms as the greatest collection of talent, knowledge, and courage ever assembled. But this year I’m starting with 1788, and Federalist Paper 69. guides.loc.gov/federalist-pap…
In it, and the subsequent Papers, Alexander Hamilton enumerates the differences between the US presidency and the monarchy. That is, why the American president is not a king, and how his power is constrained by law in many ways a king's or despot's is not.
Hamilton places great emphasis on how the presidency's great powers are constrained by the "advice and consent of the Senate" and by the threat of impeachment should he overstep. I leave it to you to read it and decide if such constraints are in effect today.
Good comparison, because a military is what Trump wants. His own personal federal National Guard. It's called Rosgvardiya in Russia, or call it a praetorian guard or gestapo. ICE will be the most powerful military force on the ground in the country, under the command of the DOJ.
Every Republican who voted for this will be guilty when this force is used against American citizens. He's already talking about deporting them. It will begin with "subversive elements," and "enemies of the people," as it always does.
Trump already tried to overthrow an election. If you're counting on his personal squeamishness over the use of force, those around him are far more ruthless. No need to deal with states or governors & the National Guard. Trumpguardia will be there for every contrived emergency.
I encourage you to see the reader comments on Mamdani and socialism and my responses below. A few summary remarks for those who have never experienced socialism, let alone communism, and why it's been a siren song for idealists & a Trojan horse for authoritarians for a century.
"Socialism" has become a talisman for the left in the free world, everything they like from public education to healthcare. But even the most robust welfare states in democracies were built on the spectacular success of capitalism. Don't kill the golden goose to get to the eggs.
The bait and switch is always about power. Sooner than later, even when sincere, attempts to enforce equity requires growing limits on freedom. As for the insincere, there's a reason the worst fascist movements of the early 20th century started with socialist branding. It sells.
Socialism is like polio, it comes back when people forget about the horrible damage it did last time.
Talking about socialism is a luxury paid for by the successes of capitalism. As I wrote in 2016:
"A popular rebuttal is to invoke the socialist leanings of several European countries with high living standards, especially in Scandinavia. Why can’t America be more like happy Denmark, with its high taxes and giant public sector, or at least more like France? Even the more pro-free-market United Kingdom has national health care, after all. First off, comparing relatively small, homogeneous populations to the churning, ocean-spanning American giant is rarely useful. And even the most socialist of the European countries only became wealthy enough to embrace redistribution after free-market success made them rich. Still, why cannot America follow this path if that is what the people want? What is the problem if American voters are willing to accept higher taxes in exchange for greater security in the embrace of the government?
The answer takes us back to all those inventions America has produced decade after decade. As long as Europe had America taking risks, investing ambitiously, attracting the world’s dreamers and entrepreneurs, and yes, being unequal, it could benefit from the results without making the same sacrifices. Add to that the incalculable windfall of not having to spend on national defense thanks to America’s massive investment in a global security umbrella. America doesn’t have the same luxury of coasting on the ambition and sacrifice of another country."
Link to that article: Garry Kasparov: Hey, Bernie, Don’t Lecture Me About Socialism. I Lived Through It. kasparov.com/garry-kasparov…
Graham's "overwhelming support" for this sanctions bill is becoming Trump’s "two more weeks" when it comes to action against Russia. Putin clearly doesn’t think they’ll really do anything—other than reduce aid to Ukraine, which they actually did.
Putin is the poker player, the bluffer with a weak hand but even weaker opponents who keep folding their winning cards. Trump, Macron, Starmer, Merz, so much talk. Western leaders have blustered and caved so many times that there is no longer any credible deterrence, only action.
Events taking shape in California can be an example for the nation to follow, or they can be the harbinger of a long, hot summer. Do protesters want change for the better or just to help Trump by trying to rule the ashes? Link below. 👇
My piece on the LA protests and how Trump's opponents can respond and join me + @UrielEpshtein today @ 5pm ET/2pm PT LIVE at The Next Move from @Renew_Democracy. Read + subscribe below. thenextmove.org/p/i-resisted-p…
I concur with the thought of MLK Jr that if they can’t attack your principles they will attack how you protest to defend them. The point of protest is discomfort, to shake the status quo when justice is unjust. But leaving the path of nonviolence only aids the oppressor.