Sydney Stein, Jr., Scholar, Brookings. White House, NSC, and State Dept in Biden, Obama and Clinton admins. Author, Losing the Long Game.
- Tweets 965
- Following 688
- Followers 10,221
- Likes 30
I'm glad this agreement was reached and the outcome seems fine. But no one should pretend that getting treaty revisions we could have just asked for was worth the tradeoff of one of the most severe crises in NATO's history, which neither our friends nor adversaries will forget.
A New Chapter for Arctic Security.
Today, President @realDonaldTrump, 🇩🇰Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen & 🇬🇱 Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen signed a landmark agreement to strengthen security across the Arctic & North Atlantic.
“Today, we have signed a good agreement. For Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States. And for NATO and Europe. The agreement strengthens our common defence and security. And it is deeply rooted in the NATO Alliance. The agreement acknowledges and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.” stated Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, about this historic agreement.
📸 Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
10
25
55
4,536
Senate Democrats will introduce bill today that would sanction companies and individuals complicit in building E1 "doomsday" settlement. If Trump actually cared about addressing settlements or settler violence he could support that; if not his "mild" response to UK means little.
🧵New: Israel asked US to intervene on its behalf in response to UK settler sanctions announcement, an Israeli official told @TimesofIsrael
Rubio indicated response could come, but 2 weeks later & Trump still claiming he’s unfamiliar w/ UK decision (1/3) timesofisrael.com/trump-show…
4
10
20
5,442
Anyone proposing AI deal with China as alternative to type of democratic compact @Malinowski proposes will have to do better than "this should be easy to do" and "this is like a one-page document." US should pursue talks with China while acting on the assumption they will fail.
There are two concepts for applying AI guardrails globally.
1. The U.S. and China agree to it, as Sam Altman fantasizes below.
2. The U.S. and other democracies agree to it and use our combined market power to hold back those (including potentiall China) who don't go along. 1/
1
11
31
12,793
With @thomaswright08 on this. Belief that lack of authorities is the missing ingredient for Trump to put more pressure on Russia is triumph of hope over experience. Believe bill is well-intentioned but given track record more likely to be abused than used.
I respect those who signed this letter supporting the Russia sanctions bill but find it extraordinary that it does not even address the main concerns with the bill, which is that it does not mandate new sanctions on Russia (it largely codifies existing measures and introduces a all purpose waiver) but will give Trump sweeping new tariff powers that he can use against the EU and others. nationalinterest.org/feature…
5
16
6,295
Notable when you compare it e.g. to the harsh US reaction to European recognition of a Palestinian state. But US silence alone will not stop rapid settlement expansion, settler violence, E1 or the annexation of the West Bank that Trump promised he would not allow.
The biggest story about the UK sanctions of Israeli settlements is the fact that the US under Trump and Rubio has not condemned or opposed.
4
2
10
1,846
How is Trump undermining deterrence in Europe?
*Bullying allies and dividing NATO even as Russian drone attacks, sabotage, and threats to Allies increase.
*Depleting advanced munitions and missile-defense interceptors in Europe to “beyond critical” levels and reportedly overriding EUCOM objections to transferring assets from Europe to the Middle East.
*Sending a top Pentagon official to NATO not to reinforce US commitments but reiterate that US strategic priorities are in other regions and to demand loyalty to Trump’s global agenda—bolstered by threats that the US could withdraw forces from Europe or leave the Alliance all together.
*Suggesting that Article 5 is conditional and linked to allies “paying their bills,” and announcing a “reconsideration” of NATO because Europeans refused to fully back his attack on Iran.
*Sending his Ukraine envoys to Moscow and Kyiv only to have them reiterate messaging about their respectful and cherished personal relationship with Putin and the search for “win-win” solutions in Ukraine.
The fundamental purpose of the US commitment to NATO is to make clear that Putin would pay a terrible price if he attacked Nato territory. By doing the opposite, Trump is making such attacks more likely rather than less.
Far from backing up Ratcliffe’s allegedly tough messaging in Moscow with policies designed to enforce it, Trump is doing the opposite. My @FT piece on why U.S. policy toward Europe makes Russian attacks more likely rather than less.
2
10
21
3,206
Far from backing up Ratcliffe’s allegedly tough messaging in Moscow with policies designed to enforce it, Trump is doing the opposite. My @FT piece on why U.S. policy toward Europe makes Russian attacks more likely rather than less.
2
22
83
18,864
Trump's negotiators finally go to Kyiv only to tell Ukrainians how respectfully Putin has treated them and how they hope to achieve a "win-win" solution--only days after telling Putin how much they'll cherish the "incredible stories and memories" of (nine) meetings with him. Must be so deflating for Ukrainians, and reassuring to Putin.
This dangerous, fatuous naivete is what happens when you put real estate men in charge of foreign policy instead of people who actually understand power.
5
23
51
4,590
Realistic take from Merz on how Europeans can and should deal with Trump. Doesn't deny genuine problem or pretend (like Rutte) Trump is anything like a friend to Europe and NATO but calls for maintaining practical relations while working to make Europe stronger.
1
5
32
4,998
4. Aiming one’s critiques at the failure to “plan for the day after,” which Bergen also does, is another common error, implying that more “planning” or tactical adjustments could have avoided the costs or failures of big strategic decisions like invading Iraq or leaving Afghanistan. Even Trump’s catastrophic Iran war—which was certainly marked by poor planning and tactical errors—failed more because it was a bad idea than because it was badly executed.
1
1
2
284
5. Finally it is certainly not true that "there hasn’t been a large-scale terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11" unless you exclude Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Pulse nightclub, the 2025 New Orleans attack and others. As Bergen notes in his book, that only applies to large-scale attacks carried out by foreign groups, which is the central success of the “global war on terror” that goes along with all its failures.
1
220
Hope all House members will reckon with critiques of @petereharrell, @J_A_Hillman, @edwardfishman and @RichardMNephew of Russia "sanctions" bill. Idea that Trump would use it to pressure Russia rather than abuse its tariff authorities would be triumph of hope over experience.
Very much agree, especially since that pen stroke could sign a new EO to do all of the actual Russia sanctions in the bill, if not already covered by existing measures.
This is a tariff policy scam, nothing more.
2
8
1,387