I will put this plainly, w/o hyperbole: If the U.S. leaves NATO, we will be looking down the barrell at a level of European warfare we haven't seen since WWII. Putin will invade more countries. Europe, for the 1st time in 80 years, will go it alone, w/o the U.S.
Look at a map. Consider a captured Ukraine, which is very possible if Trump wins. Romania, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, & Poland have all said they are prepared for greater warfare. France, Germany, & Britain are preparing to defend them.
From this year:
-"Russia preparing for military confrontation with West, says Estonia"
-"Latvia prepares for Russian aggression amid concern war will spread beyond Ukraine"
-"We need to be ready for war with Putin, Romania’s top general says"
Then, this, today from Poland, after Trump made his comments about abandoning NATO:
"Poland must prepare army for full-scale conflict, army chief says." reuters.com/world/europe/p…
What happens when the threat of the US military is removed? European war. The Baltic States & Eastern EU are most threatened. Meanwhile, France, Germany, & the UK will be tasked to defend them. Italy's Meloni is cold on Putin. Why? It's an 11-hour drive from Ukraine to Venice.
Meanwhile, Western EU is preparing to defend the East, as the East prepares to defend itself
-New joint defense agreements btwn France/Germany/ Poland
-UK puts its defense industry on "wartime footing"
-UK starts the most intense military exercises in Poland since the 1980s
I was raised by a military historian & part of my early ed was to avoid hyperbole. To do so, I said we're looking at "European Warfare." I didn't say WWIII. WWII was truly a *world* war. So let's take a moment to look at a broader map of EU, w/in the world. What do you see?
I see Iran, allied w/ Russia. I see Turkey, an opportunistic ally to both NATO & RU. An ally who might turn-coat if the threat of US force is eliminated. I see Syria, allied w/ Russia. I see Iraq, always in flux. I also see North Africa. I remember: Putin is fighting for influence in Africa.
So I look at the map. I ask myself, are these North African countries areas where Putin is specifically seeking influence? I find:
"Russia, Algeria 'tighten' strategic ties"
"Russia’s foreign minister tours North Africa as anger toward the West swells across the region"
I find, also, that North African states that have been traditionally "Western" allies, like Tunisia, are turning more towards Russia. I also find this: -Increased Russian military activity in Tunisia & Libya -Strengthened bilateral relations between Morocco & the Kremlin.
Russia may even be intending to build a naval base in Libya. Please look at a map & consider what a "naval base" in Libya means in the context of European warfare.
If we take into account China & Taiwan, plus the Middle East, where Putin has power in Iran & Syria, plus North Africa, where Putin is forming alliances & also increasing a military presence, what do we have? World War III. This is not hyperbole. It's what Europe is preparing for
Without the US, can the UK, France, Germany, & Poland defend all of EU against Russia? Maybe. But can they also defend against attacks from North Africa? Can they defend Taiwan while doing so? What about the ME? Russia has been building alliances, incl. w/ Hamas, throughout
Meanwhile, Russia is also sowing domestic discord, weakening all of Europe, just like it does w/ the U.S., from within. Russia's targets are always domestic discord. They pick at Western fissures like picking at a scab.
This is what could happen if Trump is elected & decides to leave NATO. The International Post-WWII Era will be over. No more deterrence from the US entails aggression everywhere. From a man--Putin--who is planning to aggress. Meanwhile, the press treats this as a "nothing story."
From today, in @politico "NATO plans, Trump laughs." NATO vs Trump. It makes Trump look so strong. When really, what we're talking about, is a US abdication of its anti-war responsibilities, while the rest of the world *scrambles* to adjust to this possible New World Order.
The defense strategy--NATO--that prevents broader warfare is in danger if Trump is reelected. The American press alternately ignores this issue, obfuscates, or presents it as a power-move from Trump. Replace "Nato" with "All of Europe" in this headline.
-Given Putin's war in Ukraine
-Given Putin's influence campaigns across continents
-Given Putin's military presence in the ME & NA.
-Given Trump's stance on NATO & other alliances (Taiwan)
-We, as a world, will be closer to WWIII than we have ever been since the end of WWII.
That's a story worth taking very seriously.
I didn't even mention that Trump loves dictators & tried to use "defense" to extort the Ukrainian President, who is now reliant on US defense to defend his country. Best case scenario under Trump is that the U.S. takes the side of no one. Worst case is. . . .
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Extreme interpersonal psychological abuse is, I am coming to understand, something we don't at all have a good cultural handle on and also much more frequent than I would have previously assumed.
The more I talk about psychological abuse--and I am cautious in speaking about it--the more people contact me & I realize it's something that has affected many lives. I wish I had been better educated on the matter.
I remember I texted a friend this summer and I was like, "Is this real?" And he was like, "Yes, it's fucking real and you need to get the fuck out of there. Now." He was my calmest, most analytical friend. Which is why I texted him. I didn't think he would be worried. But he was.
Just as a matter of shared truth/history: there was a period in the Summer of 2024 when Black Democrats were begging "activists," et al. to vote for Kamala Harris for the good of Black Americans & others who would be especially vulnerable under Trump. They were met w/ racism.
This is something that happened. Because it happened, we should acknowledge & document it, at the very least.
We can get into the details of the Israel vs. Hamas war, which, perhaps, could be more aptly named Hamas vs. Israel, given the belligerent party. Any reasonable person should see, however, that it was a long, complicated conflict over which the U.S. did not have that much control
My mom had been pressuring me to try to engage w/ some community & her focus was on the Orthodox church. I told her I'd prefer to visit the Reform synagogue close by, which welcomes people of all backgrounds.
(The Orthodox church here is absolutely lovely and always welcomes me too, in the most wonderful way; but it's just not the same kind of thing, with the same kind of community activities; There's other Orthodox related stuff in my history that I won't get into; & I'm independently interested in learning more about Judaism).
So anyway my mom's happy about the idea of synagogue attendance, but did tease me when I snuck away during this convo. "YOU HAVE TO KNOW THIS STORY IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO SYNAGOGUE MAG!" She is probably right.
For the record!, my dad started giving his historically-informed 15 minute lecture on Uriah for an entirely different reason. We were watching a BBC adaptation of David Copperfield & one of the characters is named Uriah. Afterwards my dad was like, "Do we KNOW the story of Uriah the Hittite?"
My mom said to my dad, 'I know the story, but I'd like to hear you tell it again" and then snuggled down in her blanket for the long-haul. Knowing my Dad I already began to creep away, lol. His lectures are great, but it was like 11:00 at night. This is when my mother, probably appropriately, shamed me. I'll have to ask my father to tell the story again.
These kinds of interactions/transitions are the story of my life, lol. For example:
I'm interested in learning more about Judaism for many reasons, but a major one is that the closest thing I've ever had to a true spiritual experience is the music of Leonard Cohen. Cohen incorporates themes from many spiritualities in his music. I would like to learn more about his references to Judaism more specifically, out of intellectual interest, as well as to understand the feeling of spirituality I have experienced. His music opened a door to a broader curiosity I am interested in exploring.
The Arab peoples in Gaza and the West Bank are not more indigenous to the area than the Jewish people of that same region. This isn't a commentary on gov't policy. (The Settlers are bad). I just don't know why we accept "indigenity" as a truthful premise when it's not one.
People who practiced Judaism were in that region before people who practiced Christianity and both those people were there before the practice of Islam. This is a factual timeline. It should not be disputed. Or morally-repurposed. It's just what the timeline is.
I am getting more and more frustrated by the levels of untruth we accept. For apparently "moral" (?) reasons. Why do we accept "The indigenous people of Palestine" as a description in opposition to Jewish populations when that is just clearly false?
It is fundamentally quite irritating that we allow anyone associated with "The Young Turks" lecture us about nation states or genocide. "Oh, I was UNAWARE of what The Young Turks did." If you were, why are you talking about Sykes-Picot & state-building in post-Ottoman lands?
If you were so naïve as to what the Young Turks did, why should we listen to you about Israel or anything else in the post-Ottoman world? Why, in particular, should we be forced to endure your rants about genocide?
You're either a naïf who knows NOTHING about the Young Turks--and therefore literally nothing about genocide--or you actively chose to name your platform after the people who inspired Raphael Lemkin to coin the word "genocide."
In 2016, HRC said something along the lines of "My personal opinions are often different (more progressive) than my public opinions" & people acted like she'd just revealed herself to be Beelzebub. HRC wasn't alone in that approach. Dems acted w/ this separation for decades.
Joe Biden changed history on LGBTQ rights not because his opinion diverged that much from mainstream center-left Democrats *but* because he blurted out what many already believed: gay marriage was good. This worked out well for us. The time was right.
Somewhere along the line, this approach changed. HRC's "separation" of personal from political was pilloried. Bernie & his acolytes shifted the party "left"--including, in 2019-20 on social issues that Bernie himself didn't even really care about. Everything became a purity test.