Marco Rubio is a genius: he pushed a text to protect NATO from US isolationnism. 😎
🧵
2/5:
🛡️ Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) & Tim Kaine (D-VA) drove Section 1250A in the FY2024 NDAA—banning unilateral U.S. exit from NATO by any prez on a whim. Protects the Alliance from "anti-NATO" leaders #NATO #Rubio
[Link: ]congress.gov/bill/118th-con…
2/5:
Key details: Prez can't suspend/terminate/withdraw from NATO Treaty w/o:
- 2/3 Senate approval, OR
- Full Act of Congress.
No funds for it otherwise. Must notify Congress 180 days ahead + consult key committees. Definitions per Vienna Convention. Ironclad check on power! ⚖️
3/5:
Passed Dec. 2023, it's bipartisan armor against isolationism. Rubio pushed similar ideas since 2019 amid Russia threats—ensures U.S. commitments aren't ditched impulsively, safeguarding allies & global security. 📜
4/5:
Why it matters in 2025: With Rubio as SecState nominee, this locks in pro-NATO stance. Even if challenged in courts, it demands democratic buy-in over solo prez moves. No more "whim" exits—Congress has the reins. 🇺🇸🇪🇺
5/5:
Sources: & Rubio's office. This NDAA section is the real NATO shield. Thoughts? Is it enough to deter whims? Reply below! #USPolitics #DefenseCongress.gov
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread on the origins of the narrative: "If Putin falls, the next one will be worse." This idea gained traction post-2014 amid Russia's actions in Ukraine. Here's a breakdown with early references. #Russia #Putin 🧵
1/5 The narrative emerged publicly in 2014, tied to Putin's brazen moves like the Crimea annexation. Earliest example: June 9, 2014, Russia expert David Kramer (ex-US Asst. Sec. of State) argued a successor to Putin is "likely to be worse," noting democratization was unlikely.
2/5 This was in discussions on Russia's future during Ukraine tensions. Kramer highlighted risks of a more unstable or aggressive leader replacing Putin.
1/ 🚨 NATO’s hunting a Russian sub in the Norwegian Sea since Aug 24, 2025. Suspected of shadowing USS Gerald R. Ford. 27+ sorties flown by US, UK, Norwegian P-8A Poseidons. High-stakes cat-and-mouse game near Lofoten Islands. #NATO #SubHunt
2/ 🛩️ Operation involves RAF P-8s from Lossiemouth, Norwegian F-35s, and US Navy aircraft from Iceland/Sicily. Royal Navy’s HMS Somerset (Type 23 frigate) joins the search. Described as a “highly unusual surge” in activity. #NorwegianSea
3/ 🌊 Sub possibly a Yasen-M or Akula-class, known for stealth. Detected via sonar near key shipping lanes. NATO’s using advanced ASW tech, but the sub’s still evading. Echoes Cold War-era hunts. #RussianNavy #ASW
Context and Timing: The vote followed raids by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) on NABU officials, with allegations of Russian infiltration, raising suspicions of a coordinated effort to weaken anti-corruption bodies. The bill was proposed by lawmakers from Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party, prompting accusations of a power grab by his inner circle, including Andriy Yermak and Oleh Tatarov.
• Domestic Pressure: Zelenskyy faces significant pressure from his own party, which controls parliament and pushed the bill. However, public outrage, protests, and calls from civil society, NGOs, and anti-corruption leaders like Kryvonos and Klymenko are urging a veto. Posts on X reflect strong public and activist opposition, with some alleging Zelenskyy’s administration aims to shield allies from corruption probes.
International Pressure: The EU has explicitly linked NABU and SAPO’s independence to Ukraine’s membership bid, with officials like Daryna Kos stating that the rule of law is at the core of accession negotiations. A veto is seen as critical to maintaining Western aid and EU support, especially amid Ukraine’s war with Russia and reliance on billions in funding.
What existing legislation?
What could be done: interested parties mutual agreement FIN/SWE/DEN/EST
This is what Grok 2.0 beta answers:
@alexstubb 😎
**Existing Legislation and Examples:**
**Existing Legislation and Examples:**
1. **International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables (1884):** This is one of the oldest pieces of international law concerning submarine cables. It criminalizes the willful or negligent damage to submarine cables but does not specify maritime zones outside territorial waters for special protection. However, it does allow for the inspection of vessels suspected of violating the convention's terms.
2.**United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982):**
While UNCLOS grants freedom to lay submarine cables on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), it does not explicitly create special caution zones in international waters for cable protection. However, it does encourage states to enact domestic legislation to penalize damage to cables, which could theoretically extend to increased vigilance or restrictions in areas with high cable density.