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
Exactly. Escalation has come from Russia for over 10 years because the West has not provided Ukraine with the weapons to deter, to halt, and to win. We have the benefit of hindsight now but still pretend to be blind.
If you think the nuclear threat is greater now than 5 months or 5 years ago, your case against Western arms has been refuted. Russia has escalated, bombing Ukrainian civilians daily. Iranian weapons, NK troops, Chinese supplies. Due not to Western arms, but the lack of them.
Putin is a KGB thug & the world's richest man. He is very cautious because the consequences for losing power are fatal. He attacked Ukraine because he needs constant conflict to distract from Russia's collapse. He thought it would be easy. Ukrainians proved him wrong.
Gabbard would be too much. Hesgeth may not be typically qualified but he's not a cheerleader for mass murdering dictators and I doubt Trump wants to pick such an bad fight with the Senate.
Musk's "efficiency" project is a bigger question. Is Congress going to allow one of the largest govt contractors to head a new department? Will it sit outside or above public agencies? As we learned in Russia, privatization is often little more than creating unaccountable power.
It’s not that they think they wouldn’t be confirmed, at least not in most cases. It’s that they want to plant a big flag early that there will be no transparency or oversight of Trump's wishes and power. Everything will be like this.
Putin steadily reshaped Russia's fragile democracy with the willing aid of the Russian Duma (Congress) and courts who didn’t want to cross him. Power is voluntarily ceded to the president and an autocratic vertical is created. Federal over state power next.
Same with all the constitutional changes that Putin made to cement his power. Why would a dictator bother with laws and elections? They want the argument of "well, everything was done legally so it’s fine". Autocrats adore sham democracy.
I’ll be writing on the election soon, but a few thoughts. Beyond the tactical, the resounding result is more evidence that far-right success follows far-left overreach. The media normalized Trump, but also downplayed how strongly many Americans disliked leftist agitation. 1/7
I.e., the prevailing tone was that leftist social agendas were simply progress, and anyone who didn’t embrace them was a fascist or dinosaur. But even if that’s an argument to be had on a talk show, it provokes moderate resentment and is a losing proposition electorally. 2/7
Harris was what we thought she was in 2020, an ineffectual candidate who only had a chance because she was running against Trump. The Dems missed the chance to find a stronger one due to Biden’s refusal to step down, as I proposed in October 2023. 3/7wsj.com/articles/biden…
American elections vote for people, not parties. This isn’t complicated. I supported GOP candidates almost exclusively before Trump, even meeting with some of their campaigns. Trump and the MAGA GOP have nothing to do with those good men or their policies.
If you had bothered to learn anything about me, my background, and my decades of public writing and speaking on politics, or even read my article you replied to, you would realize how dangerous Trump must be for me to endorse Harris. But Trump makes it obvious and necessary.
This list of questions are about politics and social tides. What a luxury to have those arguments, to vote your beliefs and opinions! In 2028, if the GOP has recovered its sanity, perhaps I will support Harris's challenger, as I supported Romney, McCain, and Haley.
When I was forced to escape Putin's crackdown in Russia and made my home in America, I never imagined I would be warning my new home about the threat of authoritarianism. But thanks to Trump, here we are. My article: thedispatch.com/article/us-des…
My endorsement of Harris is an endorsement of democracy, of institutions, of the country I grew up admiring from afar. America must not fall into the corrupt oligarchy that MAGA wants to build, one modeled on Trump's idol Putin, btw.
I warned about Trump from the beginning because I know from experience what autocrats look & sound like. I also know from experience what Communists sound like, and Harris, for all my concerns about American far left, is no Communist.