No free world leader should hesitate to state plainly that the world would be a far better place if Putin were no longer in power in Russia. A good way to make that come about is to say exactly that. Russia will be pariah until Putin is gone.
Putin has stayed in power for over 20 years because despite leading Russia to economic, demographic, and political ruin, he is still treated like the big boss who can do business and get things back on track. Shatter that belief.
Dictators crush even the smallest hint of opposition so they can say "if not me, who else?" After 20 years, it is effective. But we must all imagine Russia after Putin for it to happen. No normalization, no deals, nothing. He is illegitimate and a war criminal.
If it's impolitic or a slip to speak the truth, so be it. As I wrote today, Putin's war in Ukraine and against the world order will not end as long as he is in power. Either the war criminal is isolated or he isn't. No more half-measures. nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-ope…
Put "Putin cannot remain in power" on a Biden t-shirt. Whenever Putin was in trouble w sanctions, with opposition in the streets or economic problems, Western leaders would throw him a lifeline. A summit, a deal, something to show he was still the big boss. No more.
If he feels the need to explain, Biden can agree with Putin's spokesworm Peskov, who said the Russian people should decide who is in power. Yes, they should. And free and fair elections will finally come when Putin is gone.
Biden isn't Trump, requiring an English to English translator! No dictator is legitimate. Don't backpedal when you are right and in the right. Don't play diplomatic games with a mass murderer.
When the President is right, the White House should stick with him instead of fumbling to apologize to a murderous dictator for speaking the truth. It's pathetic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Concern about Biden's statement about Putin not remaining in power is overblown. The real worry is his admin is not clear on what it hopes to achieve in supporting Ukraine. Without US leadership, the EU, NATO, and the rest will lose their nerve at the first opportunity. 1/13
Ambiguity is tactically useful, strategically disastrous. If a dictator is uncertain of your commitment and your goals, the chance of catastrophe rises. If you backtrack on simple statements, what else might you backtrack on? Sanctions? Treaty obligations? 2/13
Supporting Ukraine 100%, as Biden says he does, means giving them what they need and doing what needs to be done to enable Ukraine to win this war, not simply survive until Putin consolidates his occupation grip, commits more war crimes, & reloads for next time. 3/13
Defense is not escalation. Putin does not own Ukraine. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, sacrificing all to defend Europe and the rest of the free world. Help them win. My op-ed: nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-ope…
"The media has documented the unfolding horror in real time, with no doubt who the villain was. The exception being Tucker Carlson and some of his Fox News colleagues, who are so adept at parroting Kremlin propaganda that they should be paid in crackers."
Following his old formula, Putin planned to use force to gain territory & concessions and the West would rush to accommodate him with diplomacy. The only problem? Someone forgot to tell the Ukrainians. My new op-ed in the @NYDailyNews: nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-ope…
Stopping the violence is the priority, but if it is done by rewarding a war criminal with territorial conquest and reducing sanctions, it will only be a pause in Putin’s war. Or wars, plural, more accurately. His wars will not truly end as long as Putin is in power.
Ukrainians deserve not just to survive, but to win. Do not repeat the mistakes of 2014 to allow Russia to continue to occupy Ukrainian territory, to let Putin claim victory and go back to holding fake negotiations in nice hotels while he rearms for his next assault.
March 24 statement by the Anti-War Committee of Russia on the need to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. It's Ukrainian land, sea, and air. Putin is an invader. If Ukraine is a sovereign state, it has the right to ask for help and deserves it. facebook.com/GKKasparov/pos…
If you agree with Putin that Ukraine has no right to exist, that whoever gets there first has the right to its skies, to bomb its cities and children, say so. If you disagree, answer Ukraine's plea.
If you are worried that Putin is mad enough to do something even more terrible if he's losing in Ukraine, do you think he cares exactly how and why he is losing? Stop self-deterring and do not abandon Ukraine yet again.
Plato is my friend, McFaul is my friend, but my dearer to me is the truth that Chubais was an architect of Russia's crony capitalism and a staunch defender of Putin's every crime. He's either saving his own skin, on a mission, or both.
Chubais was a godfather of the kleptocratic system that doomed Russia's nascent democracy. Then for decades he played a key role in whitewashing Putin's image abroad, insisting he was a man to do business with despite his burgeoning list of atrocities.
If Chubais isn't on every sanctions list already, he should be for his role in strengthening Putin's regime. He will be a defendant in the trials, not a witness. Whatever his reason for leaving now, it's not out of principle.
I've been asked several times on shows "Should we put US/NATO pilots into possible combat with Russians?" My reply is, please finish the sentence. "... in order to stop the slaughter of innocents on the ground in Ukraine?" This isn't an academic exercise.
There are situations in which the answer is obviously yes. To defend the US from attack? Yes. To defend any NATO country? Supposedly yes. To prevent genocide? Apparently not.
Putin did not need any pretext to launch this invasion. He did not need any pretext to shell & bomb innocent civilians in Ukraine. He won't need an pretext to use nuclear weapons. What we do know is that Putin always escalates when he isn't stopped.