Exciting new development in the struggle to defend democracy from autocracy: according to Forbes, an "Expanded NATO Will Shoot Billions To US Defense Contractors." #SlavaRaytheon forbes.com/sites/jonmarkm…
Forbes columnist: with NATO expansion, "the real winners are American defense companies."
Whereas misguided, elected EU leaders previously "spent lavishly on social safety nets" and "expedited pacifism," the proxy war in Ukraine has, thankfully, "changed everything." 🇺🇦
When US leaders and pundits pledge their love for NATO, they happen to never acknowledge what this Forbes columnist does: "aligning with NATO is a commitment to interoperability with the American defense ecosystem," which "directly benefits the big U.S. contractors."
Arms makers are "backed-up by the largess of the US defense budget" i.e. US taxpayers. As an added bonus, "there is no appetite politically to decrease military spending," a sentiment "spreading globally, thanks to the carnage in Ukraine."
Thank you, Ukraine proxy war carnage.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know it's awkward, but if Democrats are going to insist on using Ukraine for a proxy war against Russia, they're going to have to own the fact that they're allying with neo-Nazis like Ukraine's Azov Battalion -- which uses the same white supremacist symbol.
Seth Harp, citing interviews with Ukrainian commanders, reports word that "experienced retired specialists from the US and Great Britain" are "currently in combat in Ukraine with Ukrainian units."
Seth Harp: "I also wonder to what extent people like that are reporting back to the US military command... It really goes right up the line of actually having our own US military in combat with Russia. We have pretty much all the bases covered."
Right before Russia's invasion, OSCE monitors reported a sharp increase in shelling against the Russian-aligned Donbas republics.
As he calls for policing anti-war voices, @paulmasonnews now speculates that these attacks were really a "fake" by "Russian-aligned observers."
@paulmasonnews Difference between us is that while I think @paulmasonnews is spreading disinformation -- just as he has on Syria, and other targets of NATO proxy wars -- I would never call on the state to police him.
I think our views should be debated, which I offered to him, but he declined.
.@SamSeder's segment doesn't:
- say what allegedly makes me a "grifter"
- refute anything I’ve said
- defend his show's allegation that I deny genocide; he just states that allegations of a Uyghur genocide are "controversial" (💪)
- have anything to do with its clickbait title
@SamSeder On top of all that, @SamSeder claims to be unfamiliar with me and my work.
So why do a clickbait segment attacking me, rather than just retract and apologize? Sounds... grifter-y.
I’m blocked by the head of Joe Biden’s new “Disinformation Governance Board.” Is there someone else from the government who can tell me whether I’m spreading the right information? 🤞🏼
Here's Biden's new "Disinformation" czar promoting state-funded disinformation: NYT & NED-funded Bellingcat accusing Syria of committing a chemical attack in Douma.
OPCW whistleblowers have since debunked this; @wiczipedia has yet to acknowledge them.
The commitment by @RobertMackey & his @theintercept editors to the US state line on Syria is a model for media hacks everywhere.
3 years since OPCW leaks & whistleblowers undermined US claims of a chemical attack in Douma, Mackey & TI still won't acknowledge their existence:
.@RobertMackey claims OPCW experts "concluded that a toxic chemical, most likely chlorine, was used" in Douma. He omits that the OPCW experts who actually went to Syria concluded otherwise, but were censored.
But who cares about leaks that show the OPCW suppressing and doctoring its own findings to support of the US narrative?
No need for @RobertMackey to let us know about that. He has better sources: articles, including his own, written *before* the OPCW leaks surfaced. Case closed!