TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RnaudBertrand
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Absolutely extraordinary exchange between Israel and China 👇 I've never seen such a heated exchange come out of top-level forum in China (this is from the 12th Beijing Xiangshan Forum that started yesterday), this normally never happens. The guy speaking is Yan Xuetong, the dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, the most prestigious university in China. Speaking for Israel is a military officer apparently called Elad Shoshan. Yan Xuetong truly doesn't hold back: - When the Israeli officer tries to bullshit him around how Israel supposedly protects civilians in Gaza, he replies: "You killed more than 70,000 civilians!... The fact is not decided by you... It is not decided by your government. Your government has no legitimacy or the right to decide or defend what is fact" - And when told that the war will end when Hamas release hostages he replies: "No, this kind of propaganda have too many. No one believe it! Too many! Too much! No one believe it, except a few Israelis"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
What an amazing deal maker Macron is: - In 2015 he sold France's Alstom to General Electric on the back of US blackmail that involved the jailing of one of Alstom's key executives (Frédéric Pierucci). As part of Alstom, France lost the highly strategic Arabelle turbines, which equip France's nuclear power plants. - Today he announces that, hurray!, he managed to buy back the Arabelle turbines from the Americans at twice the price he sold them for (see community note) 🤦♂️ - What he doesn't mention however is that GE changed the software that operates the Arabelle turbines to a proprietary GE software called "Mark" which not only means that France is now dependent on this software (as well as additional American IP) to operate its nuclear plants but also that as per US legislation the US can now dictate who France is allowed to sell nuclear power plants to... (Src: https://lvsl.fr/rachat-des-turbines-arabelle-la-soumission-francaise-aux-etats-unis-continue/) The art of the deal à la Française...
@EmmanuelMacron - Emmanuel Macron
C’est un engagement que j’avais pris à Belfort : EDF reprend dès aujourd’hui les activités nucléaires de General Electric, notamment la fabrication des turbines Arabelle. Un grand pas pour notre souveraineté énergétique. Une fierté française ! https://t.co/djnMiv7QUH
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Quite an incredible move in French politics today that might reveal that we're in fact witnessing nothing less than a coup by Macron. Let me explain 🧵
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
You'll remember that on the 7th of July France held elections that Macron lost badly, and which the left's "New Popular Front" won. https://t.co/057y50894z
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
We're now 48 days afterwards and Macron and his government are still running the country, they've basically ignored the election results which is unprecedented in the history of the French 5th republic. https://t.co/V7ostiA2Ec
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Normally, as is the rule set by precedents, Macron should have nominated a Prime Minister from the New Popular Front, the winners of the elections 🤷♂️
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
At first Macron argued that it wasn't convenient to change government right before the Olympics games and argued for an "Olympics truce". Which is a bit bizarre because he's the one who decided to hold the elections right before the Olympics 🤦♂️
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Anyhow we're now almost 2 weeks after the end of the Olympics and the situation is still the same so everyone is started to ask "wtf?"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Especially given that the New Popular Front has a Prime Minister ready: Lucie Castets, a senior public servant. https://t.co/rAhNRBRJHH
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Now the excuse by Macron's camp is that they refuse a government with anyone from LFI ("France's unbowed", Mélenchon's party), the main party on the left and therefore the main party in the New Popular Front coalition (Lucie Castets is not from LFI but some ministers could be). https://t.co/ckYHEiNJSV
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Macron has been demonizing LFI in a very similar fashion to the way Jeremy Corbyn was demonized in the UK, with accusations of antisemitism for their support of Gaza. Except that unlike Corbyn, LFI doesn't bow - they're "France unbowed" after all - and fight back the accusations
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Which brings me to what happened this morning, an incredible gamble by Mélenchon who asked an open question to Macron: "Say we committed to no LFI members in the government, would you nominate Lucie Castets Prime Minister?" https://t.co/PEWfenXRgg
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This forces Macron's hand: if he says "no", as Mélenchon himself wrote, it'd show that Macron's refusal to have LFI in the government is "just a pretext to deny the election results". In effect if he says no, he openly admits that he just doesn't accept the election results.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Olivier Faure, who leads the Socialist party (the other big political force in the New Popular Front) backs up Mélenchon and says the "pretext of the presence of LFI ministers" isn't valid anymore. https://t.co/D6Lns6MBay
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
In a way a New Popular Front government without LFI would in itself a denial of democracy because most voters voted for them *because* LFI was part of the coalition. But this is also an act of political courage by Mélenchon and a way to put Macron in front of his contradictions.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
We've already had some of Macron's lieutenants reply such as Benjamin Haddad (former spokesperson for Macron's party in the French parliament) who literally says that a New Popular Front gvt is unacceptable either way because it'd be bad for France. They get to decide this? 🤔 https://t.co/DU5ZMWlUBb
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Let's see what Macron ultimately does but we're truly witnessing something extraordinary that demonstrates how undemocratic France has become: the people voted and the result of their vote is so far simply rejected because those holding power don't like it...
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
I got this community note 👇 in the thread, which is NOT true. In the elections of 2022 - the prior ones - Macron's party arrived first without winning a majority yet Macron didn't hesitate to nominate a Prime Minister from his own party 🤷♂️ https://t.co/PJJ60P6ZPB
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Another extraordinary comment on this matter by François Bayrou, a former Macron minister and a famous centrist politician in France: https://t.co/NvdNQArcfC He literally says that the answer to Mélenchon's question is "of course no" (i.e. a New Popular Front government won't be accepted no matter what) because the program of the NFP is "very dangerous" for France. There you have it, he said the quiet part out loud: folks who lost the elections refuse to leave power in favor of those who won it because they disagree with the policies the winners would enact, and they believe they're the ultimate judge for how the country should be governed. Absolutely unreal.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Update: it's now official, in a just-released communiqué Macron has rejected a government led by the New Popular Front (NPF). It's an unprecedented situation in the history of the 5th French Republic: the loser in the election effectively rejects yielding power to the winner. He explains it by the fact that his "responsibility is to ensure that the country be neither blocked nor weakened", arguing that were he to nominate a NPF government they'd soon be censored by parliament and destituded. That may be the case but still this awfully inconvenient fact remains: Macron's party got way less votes and MPs than the NPF, yet it is Macron's party that's still running the French government, and it is Macron himself making choices on who can or cannot assume power based on what he thinks would "weaken France" or not. It's insane when you think about it.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Source for the communiqué https://t.co/cWcwPYUQm0
@Elysee - Élysée
En vue de la nomination d’un Premier ministre, le Président @EmmanuelMacron a reçu les responsables des partis représentés au Parlement ainsi que les Présidents des deux chambres. Le communiqué : https://t.co/cY5YAZRrms
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
And now a communiqué by La France Insoumise ("France's unbowed"), the main political force in the New Popular Front coalition, in reply to Macron's decision. They announce they're moving ahead with an impeachment procedure against Macron. https://t.co/8Yv7GcU7g2
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
There you go: impeachment procedure launched against Macron by La France Insoumise ("France's unbowed"), the main political force in the New Popular Front coalition that won the elections, after Macron said he wouldn't honor the election results. They also call for a protest movement all around France. This is a translation of their communiqué (itself a reply to a communiqué by Macron where he outright rejects a government led by the New Popular Front, who won the elections): "The President of the Republic has just made a decision of exceptional gravity. He does not recognize the result of the universal suffrage that placed the New Popular Front at the top of the votes. He refuses to appoint Lucie Castets as Prime Minister. He invokes 'institutional stability'. It is not up to him to do this, but up to the parliament to achieve it. Yet another abuse of power! And what does he mean? Has he found another parliamentary majority available? What, or who, is he talking about? Under these conditions, the motion for impeachment will be presented by the Insoumis deputies to the bureau of the National Assembly in accordance with Article 68 of the Constitution. And any proposal for a prime minister other than Lucie Castets will be subject to a motion of censure. The gravity of the moment calls for a firm response from French society against the incredible abuse of autocratic power of which it is the victim. The Insoumis movement proposes that marches for the respect of democracy take place. It expresses the wish that all organizations attached to democracy unite to face and compel the president to recognize the result of the elections." As a final note, please be aware that an impeachment procedure is extremely unlikely to be successful as they'd need 2/3rd of all MPs to vote in favor of it. So their filing of the impeachment motion is largely symbolic.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is absolutely priceless. And probably the most frightening clip you'll ever watch on the people in charge of the US economy. Jared Bernstein is literally the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, the main agency advising Biden on economic policy https://t.co/1b31FPFPCQ
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is without a doubt one of the most important pieces of reporting on Gaza, and by far one of the most disturbing: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ All by Israeli journalist @yuval_abraham based on whistleblower accounts from within the IDF and intelligence agencies. Israel has developed an AI called "Lavender" to generate kill lists, with almost no human verification to double check the targets selected by the machine: only a a “rubber stamp” check of about “20 seconds” just to make sure the AI target is male. Moreover, the Israeli army "systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity". In fact Israel developed another automated system called “Where’s Daddy?” used "specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences" 🤮 One of the intelligence officers who spoke to Abraham is quoted in the article: “We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity. On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.” In fact the article reveals a ratio, I think for the first time: "according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians... The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander." A ratio of 20 civilians killed for one target works out to about 95% civilian deaths. Please do read the whole article as it describes in details how the whole process works with the Lavender AI. It's industrialized extermination the likes of which we haven't seen since... you know when.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Netanyahu: "For 30 years I've worked to prevent the 2-state solution, our goal with the war is an Israel from the river to the sea" Biden: "We can make it work, Netanyahu is not opposed to all 2-state solutions" Netanyahu: "No, really, Biden is wrong, not going to happen" https://t.co/4kAGBlumF1
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This journalist 👇 yesterday told Biden "Bibi said he's opposed to any 2-state solution" and Biden replied "no, no, he didn't say that!". It's frankly incredible how Biden is either utterly delusional or even more dishonest than Netanyahu himself. https://t.co/UrdRpK1F01
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
And Netanyahu, this morning 👇 "I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area west of the Jordan river [i.e. which comprises all of the West Bank and Gaza] - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state." Pretty damn clear. https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1748764135716749568?s=20
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is one of Israel's leading playwright Motti Lerner: "I can't understand our indifference, our complacency. Do I want to be a citizen of a country that kills 11,000 children in my name? To protect me? Have we gone crazy?" https://t.co/81HXzTVOco More Israelis should follow his lead and speak up. I suspect there's a large amount of people who are extremely disturbed by what's going on but afraid to speak up for one reason or another. But I also predict they'll bitterly regret it if they don't, as that will make them silent accomplices of one of the most disgusting massacres in history, perpetrated in their name.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Beyond vicious. CCTV footage from the West Bank shows an IDF vehicle repeatedly driving over a young Palestinian they'd shot. Unclear if the man was dead or alive at the time. The IDF's official comment? "We ran over the body unintentionally" 🤢 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/10/west-bank-videos-show-israeli-troops-killing-teenager-and-driving-over-mans-body And another CCTV footage shows an IDF sniper shooting at a group of teenagers who didn't commit any provocation whatsoever. As some of them try to help their friend hit by a bullet, the IDF shoots again, killing a 17-year old in the process and wounding another. The IDF said they did so because the group was "lighting a Molotov cocktail" but it's clear from the video they were were just lighting some cardboard boxes to keep warm during the evening.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
France is simply not a serious country anymore. Our new Prime Minister - Gabriel Attal - is 34 years old. Here's his CV: - Went to one of the poshest high schools in Paris (École Alsacienne) - Graduated university (Sciences Po) in Paris in 2012 with a Master of Public Affairs - Worked a menial job (parliamentary liaison) for five years at the Ministry of Health - Became an MP in 2017 of a small posh constituency in greater Paris - Since he is arguably a good public speaker he was made spokesperson of La République En Marche! (Macron's party) in January 2018 - October 2018: appointed Secrétaire d'État (junior minister) to the Minister of National Education and Youth - 2020: he became the government spokesperson - May 2022: he became Minister of Public Action and Accounts - July 2023: appointed Minister of National Education and Youth - January 2024: Prime Minister So here we have a guy who graduated university only 12 years ago, only has 6 years work experience at a job with actual "responsibilities" and half that time he was a spokesperson (i.e. a press secretary). He has never worked (or even studied) outside Paris and has obviously remained in the same small cushy bubble all his - very short - life, stepping directly from the benches of his posh school to those of the French government. The most hardship he's suffered in his life is probably when his mummy grounded him for not doing his homework... Are you telling me this is the profile of a man with the character and life experience necessary to lead a country's government? I mean, COME ON! I know liberal democracy has become such that politicians are supposed to be mere pretty faces just explaining to you that "it's not true that everything is going to shit and we're the best" but even with this standard, this is just a joke. I mean, at least try to make it look real... I'd actually take any random 50-year old French farmer and would be more reassured with them leading the country (no disrespect meant to farmers, obviously).
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." Tacitus
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary interviews of a former senior US government official on Gaza. This is Chas Freeman, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Key points in the video: - He agrees that many of the victims of Oct 7th were killed by the Israeli army in the form of "undisciplined fire by helicopters with hellfire missiles or by tanks with incendiary rounds directed at buildings". In the case of the victims of the music festival he even says they "were largely killed, it appears, by hellfire missiles and by other undisciplined fire by Israeli forces". To him this "disgrace in military terms" stems from a "lack of discipline and training necessary to respond" but also from the IDF's "Hannibal directive", which "says that rather than get into bargaining over hostage exchange you should just kill the Israeli hostages along with their captors." - He says that with Oct 7th "Hamas had 2 objectives": 1) "Put the Palestinian self-determination issue back on the global agenda", something he says they've "succeeded" in doing since they're is "widespread recognition outside Israel that only self-determination for Palestine in the form of a 2-state solution can provide security to Israel". He says that even in "the US, which has a larger Jewish population than Israel, many Jews have come to realize that this is the case. Younger Jews in particular in the U.S. are very disillusioned with Zionism and don't want to suffer contagion from it in the form of antisemitism, which is actually growing now as a result of Israeli actions". 2) "Give Hamas enormous popularity among Palestinians because they are seen as having stood up, as having been willing to accept death rather than captivity". He refers to Norman Finkelstein's "analogy of slave revolts in the U.S." and particularly the "1831 revolt by Nat Turner, a well-educated very intelligent enslaved African who led a slave revolt in Southern Virginia which had as its objective the murder of every white person they encountered." He says it "raises a moral question: 'Is the violence of the slave-owner morally the same as the violence of the slave trying to end that violence?'. The same moral question arises with Israeli oppression of Palestinians versus Palestinian resistance to oppression." - All in all he concludes that much like the violence against African-Americans that followed slave revolts in the 19th century, the Israeli vengeance against Palestinians "won't be remembered fondly by anyone in the future". In fact he goes as far as saying that "when people think of Israel in the past they thought of it as a refuge for the victims of the Holocaust... now they will think of it as the home of perpetrators of genocide. When they think of Israel, they will think of burned buildings and dead babies. This is an image problem of a fundamental nature and from the point of view of Israel it strips Israel of its protection by charges of antisemitism against anyone who is critical of Israel because to be critical of people who are carrying out genocide cannot be antisemitism, it cannot be considered immoral. Antisemitism is a despicable attitude but to oppose genocide by Israel is not."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
According to the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR), 11 men were shot in front of their family members on Tuesday and "the IDF then allegedly ordered the women and children into a room, and either shot at them or threw a grenade into the room": https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/un-human-rights-office-opt-unlawful-killings-gaza-city Here's the full details as written by the OHCHR: "On 19 December 2023, between 2000 and 2300 hours, IDF reportedly surrounded and raided Al Awda building, also known as the “Annan building”, in Al Remal neighborhood, Gaza City, where three related families were sheltering in addition to Annan family. According to witness accounts circulated by media sources and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, while in control of the building and the civilians sheltering there, the IDF allegedly separated the men from the women and children, and then shot and killed at least 11 of the men, mostly aged in their late 20’s and early 30’s, in front of their family members. The IDF then allegedly ordered the women and children into a room, and either shot at them or threw a grenade into the room, reportedly seriously injuring some of them, including an infant and a child. OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awda building, although the details and circumstances of the killings are still under verification. IDF has not released any information on the incident."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
People who still believe this war is about "defeating Hamas" and not the wholesale destruction of Gazan society might be the most naïve people on earth right now. If the Israelis really wanted to "defeat Hamas" they'd be attempting to marginalize them in Gazan society. Instead they're treating the whole society as "Hamas" and just seek to destroy it all.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is so extraordinary that I don't want it to get lost in a thread. Here you have Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet (Israel's secret service), comparing Israel's current strategy in Gaza to that of "ISIS and Al Qaeda". Remember the Netanyahu government's talking point that "Hamas is ISIS"? He effectively says "no, it is Israel that's ISIS here".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This might be the best explanation I heard for "why Oct 7" and, surprisingly, it comes from Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet, Israel's secret service, and commander-in-chief of the Navy. Here what he says (this is the first video, there are a couple more below which you'll really want to watch): He says the "most important cause [of Oct 7]" was "the political paradigm", whereby Israel's policy was "divide and rule", meaning Israel "had to make sure Palestinians would not have a unified leadership" and could therefore always say "nobody to talk with, nothing to talk about". Concretely "in order to do it [Israel] had to make sure Hamas would go on controlling Gaza and the Palestinian authority the West bank", and incite them to "fight each other". This is why Israel "enhanced and assisted Hamas, transferred money, etc." As a result of all this Hamas "got the Palestinians' support" because "they became the only administration who fought against the Israeli occupation and for the purpose of Palestinian freedom" while Fatah and the Palestinian authority became perceived as "Israeli collaborators". In his assessment "between 70 to 80% of the Palestinians are supporting Hamas, only because Hamas is perceived as the one who fight for [their] freedom." He says Israel completely misunderstood the situation before Oct 7 because it measures "hardware" whilst Hamas measures "software", meaning that after every fight between Israel and the Palestinians, success for Israel is measured in "losses in human life, in military installations, in military infrastructure" whereas what Hamas measures is "the support of the people." As an illustration he says that in May 2021 - when there was fighting during 2 weeks and around 300 Palestinians were killed (to 17 on the Israeli side) - Israel thought that Hamas "suffered a huge loss and a huge military defeat" but from Hamas's standpoint it was "a huge victory" because this led to Hamas, for the first time, getting "more than 50% of the support from the Palestinian people."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This feels so wrong. Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronot quotes the IDF admitting "casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7" but refusing to investigate because "it would not be morally sound [...] due to the immense and complex quantity of them that took place in the kibbutzim and southern Israeli communities" Src: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
WOW, this might be THE most important piece of journalism on the war on Gaza since it began, by Israeli newspaper @972mag : https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/ Essentially they confirm, with unimpeachable sourcing, that the killing of civilians was all calculated and intentional. Their investigation is "based on conversations with seven current and former members of Israel’s intelligence community — including military intelligence and air force personnel who were involved in Israeli operations in the besieged Strip — in addition to Palestinian testimonies, data, and documentation from the Gaza Strip, and official statements by the IDF Spokesperson and other Israeli state institutions." What the investigation reveals is that "the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed." One source told them: "Nothing happens by accident. When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed — that it was a price worth paying in order to hit [another] target. We are not Hamas. These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home." Even more dystopian - and this might be a first in the history of warfare - a lot of the targets are identified by AI: for instance they "use of a system called 'Habsora' ('The Gospel'), which is largely built on artificial intelligence and can 'generate' targets almost automatically at a rate that far exceeds what was previously possible. This AI system, as described by a former intelligence officer, essentially facilitates a 'mass assassination factory.' According to the sources, the increasing use of AI-based systems like Habsora allows the army to carry out strikes on residential homes where a single Hamas member lives on a massive scale, even those who are junior Hamas operatives." I'm not going to copy the whole article here, you have to read this for yourself. IT IS INSANE. They've essentially been running, as the sources say, a "mass assassination factory" at a terrifying scale with massive and intended "collateral damage" (often the targets' entire families, or even sometimes much of their neighborhood), alongside an objective to destroy much of Gaza to “create a shock”, all on a population that had nowhere to escape. It'll likely remain in history books as one of the most depraved massacres in modern history.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
WOW, this might be THE most important piece of journalism on the war on Gaza since it began, by Israeli newspaper @972mag : https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/ Essentially they confirm, with unimpeachable sourcing, that the killing of civilians was all calculated and intentional. Their investigation is "based on conversations with seven current and former members of Israel’s intelligence community — including military intelligence and air force personnel who were involved in Israeli operations in the besieged Strip — in addition to Palestinian testimonies, data, and documentation from the Gaza Strip, and official statements by the IDF Spokesperson and other Israeli state institutions." What the investigation reveals is that "the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed." One source told them: "Nothing happens by accident. When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed — that it was a price worth paying in order to hit [another] target. We are not Hamas. These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home." Even more dystopian - and this might be a first in the history of warfare - a lot of the targets are identified by AI: for instance they "use of a system called 'Habsora' ('The Gospel'), which is largely built on artificial intelligence and can 'generate' targets almost automatically at a rate that far exceeds what was previously possible. This AI system, as described by a former intelligence officer, essentially facilitates a 'mass assassination factory.' According to the sources, the increasing use of AI-based systems like Habsora allows the army to carry out strikes on residential homes where a single Hamas member lives on a massive scale, even those who are junior Hamas operatives." I'm not going to copy the whole article here, you have to read this for yourself. IT IS INSANE. They've essentially been running, as the sources say, a "mass assassination factory" at a terrifying scale with massive and intended "collateral damage" (often the targets' entire families, or even sometimes much of their neighborhood), alongside an objective to destroy much of Gaza to “create a shock”, all on a population that had nowhere to escape. It'll likely remain in history books as one of the most depraved massacres in modern history.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is an incredibly damning piece of historical evidence: This is Davyd Arakhamia, parliamentary leader of Zelensky's ''Servant of the People'' party. He led the Ukrainian delegation at peace talks with the Russians in Belarus and Türkiye in 2022, a few weeks into the war. Here’s what he says: - He confirms that Russia’s principal goal for the war wasn’t to invade the whole of Ukraine but to force Ukraine to become a neutral country that would not be part of NATO: “[Russia] really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the most important thing for them. They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to, – as Finland once did, – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO. In fact, this was the key point. Everything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning’ about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah-blah-blah." - When asked why Ukraine did not agree to this, here’s what he says: “First, in order to agree to this point, it is necessary to change the Constitution. Our path to NATO is written in the Constitution. Secondly, there was no confidence in the Russians that they would do it. This could only be done if there were security guarantees. We could not sign something, step away, everyone would relax there, and then they would [invade] even more prepared – because they had, in fact, gone in unprepared for such a resistance. Therefore, we could only explore this route when there is absolute certainty that this will not happen again. There is no such certainty. Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight.” He’s actually not being very forthright about the “no confidence in the Russians so this could only be done if there were security guarantees” claim, because from the media reports at the time in early 2022, this aspect of the deal was getting concretized. It’s even still up on Ukraine’s official presidency website: https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/na-peregovorah-iz-rosiyeyu-ukrayinska-delegaciya-oficijno-pr-73933 The concept was that permanent members of the UN Security Council would be the guarantors of the deal, alongside Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland and Israel. The issue seems to have been that those security guarantees were “greeted with skepticism” by “Western officials”, as highlighted in this WSJ piece from back then: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-proposal-for-nato-style-security-guarantee-greeted-with-skepticism-11648683375 So this, combined with Arakhamia’s confirmation that what really killed the deal was “Boris Johnson [coming] to Kyiv and [saying] that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight” shows that it is unequivocally the West that killed the peace deal. Which confirms the extremely damning responsibility of the West in this war because we’re at a stage, 20 months later, when not only has Ukraine lost a horrifying amount of men (likely hundreds of thousands of deaths) but they couldn’t dream of getting such favorable conditions in a peace deal that the West is NOW pressuring them to make. And I won’t even get into the responsibility of the West in triggering this conflict in the first place with the expansion of NATO and the transformation of Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia’s border… Will there be any reckoning? Any admission of this responsibility? Any accountability? Any change, any rethinking in order to avoid such catastrophic failures in the future? Sadly I don’t even see the first inkling of the beginning of this, especially in Europe. And this is what makes me most depressed: it shows we're institutionally set in our erroneous ways with no capability to learn, adapt and change.
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Another masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. Again I believe that his words are so important and so rare among Western leaders today, that I decided to translate it in full (the bold parts are emphasis Villepin himself made when speaking): "The Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed on October 7th and failed doubly. Firstly, in its ability to ensure the protection of the Israeli people by allowing massacres that are an abomination to occur. He bears direct responsibility for what happened. And his second failure is having encouraged a policy of occupation and colonization, which continues at this moment in the West Bank and constitutes another threat to Israel if a second front in the West Bank were to open. Force does not ensure the security of a people! This is what all Israelis must understand today. And what is important is that since October 7th, the Israeli government's choice has been to escalate the use of force. You know, neither force nor vengeance ensures peace and security. What ensures peace and security is justice! And justice is not being served today. The rationale of the Israeli government for the bombings happening today is flawed, and the whole international community can see it. The principle is: "we target terrorists, and unfortunately, there are also civilian populations," what is euphemistically called in military language "collateral damage." It must be understood that this collateral damage is not accidental. That is to say, it is perfectly predictable and fully accepted. [Host: "But once again, the responsibility is not solely Israeli."] But once more, let's stop asking about responsibility; let's look at the reality of what's happening on the ground! Assigning fault, allow me to tell you, we will leave to historians. What we want is to stop this violence, to stop these massacres. Israel is putting itself in danger, even more today, with this type of warfare and these types of strikes. We are essentially dealing with a policy of vengeance from the Netanyahu government. Israel has the right to self-defense, but self-defense does not give an indiscriminate right to kill civilian populations. When you target an ambulance, you can always imagine that there was a terrorist in one of the ambulances, or not. But the result is that there are children, women who die. Every child, every woman killed, that's more terrorists. Therefore, Israel's objective, what Israel achieves, is exactly the opposite of what they wish. So, it is essential today to change this logic and return to a strategy that is sound. Hostages, everything must be done to secure their release. But let's not forget: the Palestinian people are also taken hostage, by Hamas and by Israel. And Hamas, we all know, cares little for the Palestinian people. So telling Hamas: "we will not lift the siege, we will not have a humanitarian truce until the hostages are released," is a dialogue of the deaf. Benjamin Netanyahu is waging a war to do everything so that the political solution does not come to the table. And this is where the international community, Europe, the United States, must tell Benjamin Netanyahu that this war is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because it leads us directly [to escalation] - because we can see it well, from Hamas we will move to Iran, from Iran we will move to other targets, and we then enter into the logic of a clash of civilizations. When Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu says that on one side there is the people of light and on the other the people of darkness, we can see the kind of spiral we are getting into. All the wars that have been going on for the past twenty years are wars that begin and do not end. These are frozen conflicts. We know how to start a war; we do not know how to end it. And Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu could control Gaza, it would change nothing. There will continue to be terrorist attacks, Israelis will continue to live in fear. We must get out of this. The second reason why this is yesterday's war is that the war against terrorism has never been won anywhere. Force is not the answer, once again. Vengeance is not the answer. The answer is justice, and that is what all the peoples of the world, all those who today watch what is happening, call for justice. Today the direction we must follow is to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from continuing his suicidal logic that will make Israel a besieged state. They can besiege Gaza, but they will be besieged. And do not think that tomorrow we will again have a pacified discourse with Saudi Arabia, with the Arab states that will normalize the situation: no! The wounds of history are awakening. Israel's interest is to have a responsible state at its side. And this responsible state, let's stop splitting hairs, must clearly be the West Bank, all of the West Bank. It must be Gaza, with access between the two territories, and East Jerusalem. The problem, and this is the whole point of Benjamin Netanyahu's escalation, is that Benjamin Netanyahu does not want it. And the policy of separation must be dignified. That is, it must confer to the Palestinians a state where they can live, a viable state, a true state, which can build itself and which will be all the more at peace... [Host: "Does that mean that the settlements in the West Bank have to be removed?"] Well, when we left Algeria, there were a million French who left Algeria. Today there are 500,000 Israelis colonizing the West Bank, and there are 200,000 in East Jerusalem. [Host: "They must leave the West Bank?"] Yes. Yes, that is history, that is responsibility, that is the price! I tell you solemnly, it is the price of security for Israel! And all those who today consider that it will never be enough are pursuing the worst policy." Credit to @caissesdegreve who took these extracts from the original interview which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY7Iw54NiWM
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Annexation confirmed: "Israel will keep control over Gaza indefinitely after its war against Hamas ends, Benjamin Netanyahu has stated" Let's see how Western leaders explain how that's "totally different from Ukraine" in the next few days 😉 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/07/netanyahu-israel-consider-tactical-pauses-gaza
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Wow! Absolute bombshell of an article on Xinjiang: https://nzz.ch/meinung/xinjiang-china-kampf-gegen-terrorismus-und-separatismus-ld.1753509 Very courageous of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung @NZZ to publish this! First of all the article is written by probably the 2 most highly respected German sinologists: Thomas Heberer, a senior professor of Chinese politics and society at the University of Duisburg-Essen and Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, a senior professor of Chinese studies and the director of the China Centrum Tübingen (CCT). They wrote this article after having themselves done their own private investigation on site in Xinjiang in May this year with 2 other German China scholars and an international lawyer. If you don't speak German or are too lazy to translate it, here is what the article says (I summarize): - They confirm that what happened in Xinjiang was the result of "massive Islamist terror between 2010 and 2016" with "twelve separatist-Islamist movements" active at the same time. - They remind that "in 2016, extremist Uighurs declared in an ISIS video that they planned to 'drown Han Chinese in a sea of blood.'" And that "they began recruiting young Uighurs as fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan in southern Xinjiang". - All this "almost led to a loss of control by the central government". As a result of this "Beijing felt compelled to respond with undoubtedly excessive measures to curb the terror and regain control. The internal security of all of China was at stake. It should also not be overlooked that the Uighur population itself suffered from the terror." - Beijing's response was "a transitional phase" between "2017 to 2020" where "Beijing was forced to declare a 'state of emergency', move military units to Xinjiang, and establish a strict discipline regime." - Since new Party Secretary Ma Xingrui, who has been in office since December 2021, the goal is "a return to 'normalcy' as quickly as possible". They write that "the various camps established during the peak of the fight against terror have now been largely dissolved" and that "clear signs of a return to 'normalcy' are evident. In the regions visited by the group, police street checkpoints are clearly no longer in use." - They write that "among the Uighur population, the modernizations initiated by the central government in education, medical care, and employment clearly receive noticeable sympathy. [...] With the introduction of fifteen years of free education (kindergarten, school, and vocational training) for young Uighur men and women, the state has initiated a new development boost. Additionally, initially in the southern part of Xinjiang, there is state-subsidized healthcare. [...] This is complemented by regionally divided and adapted development aid and resource allocation from the wealthier eastern provinces of China. This is evident in modern vocational training centers in each Xinjiang county. Students receive 200 yuan monthly in addition to free education to support their parents. State-sponsored settlements of modern branches in the agricultural and industrial sectors, which must employ almost exclusively Uighurs at nationally valid minimum wage standards, are intended to help solve the employment problem." - They write that even though "the travel group could not ascertain general discrimination against the Uighur language and culture, in Xinjiang, as in all areas of ethnic minorities with their language and script, the main language of instruction in schools from secondary level is Mandarin. The native language is always offered as a subject in compulsory schooling." - Their conclusion: "If the human rights situation continues to normalize demonstrably, the EU should initiate dialogue and reconsider the sanctions imposed on China due to Xinjiang."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This was to be expected. Poor guys 😓 This is why no-one will speak out and why I said they were courageous. "Freedom of speech" 🤦♂️ https://t.co/pNxxr1SpiW
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers - from Kissinger to Chomsky - who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
The first one is George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Then there's Kissinger, in 2014 ⬇️ He warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that it therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Clinton's defense secretary William Perry explaining in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Stephen Cohen, a famed scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential" Whole video worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9jULgC42o
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is famous Russian-American journalist Vladimir Pozner, in 2018, who says that NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russian, that there has to be a compromise where "Ukraine, guaranteed, will not become a member of NATO."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is famous economist Jeffrey Sachs writing right before war broke out a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warning in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/ukraine-theres-no-way-out-unless-the-west-understands-its-past-mistakes
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Paul Keating, 24th prime minister of Australia, writing in 1997 that expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system [in early 20th]"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warning one year before the war that " [pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Pat Buchanan - assistant and special consultant to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan - writing in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation."
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This 2008 Wikileaks cable by Bill Burns - now CIA Director - entitled "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES" warns that "Russia [viewed] continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine... as a potential military threat". https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is British journalist @Itwitius, former Sky News foreign affairs editor, in his 2015 book Prisoners of Geography: for Russia "a pro-Western Ukraine with ambitions to join [EU or NATO] could not stand" and "could spark a war".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion. It's a "policy error of historic proportions" they write. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is George Beebe who used to be the CIA's top Russia analyst who in December 2021 linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky"
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, who wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Frank Blackaby, former director of SIPRI, writing in 1996 that "any Russian Government will react, militarily as well as politically to [NATO’s expansion]" and that it makes "Europe drift [...] towards Cold War II".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is legendary journalist @johnpilger who wrote this article in 2014. He describes Ukraine as having become a "CIA theme park", a situation that he foresaw would lead to "a Nato-run guerrilla war" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger
John Pilger: Washington's role in Ukraine, and its backing for the regime's neo-Nazis, has huge implications for the rest of the world
theguardian.com@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Shiping Tang, one of China's foremost International Relations scholars, writing in 2009 that the "EU must put a stop to [the] U.S./NATO way of approaching European affairs", especially with regards to Ukraine, otherwise it'll "permanently divid[e] Europe".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
This is Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych in 2015. He says that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
Even legendary Soviet dissident Solzhenitsyn saw NATO expansion as "an effort to encircle Russia and destroy its sovereignty". He said Russia should "in no way dare betray the multi-million Russian population in Ukraine".(https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/news/03iht-edpfaff.html and noblit.ru/node/1041 )
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
And of course just 3 days ago we now have NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pretty much admitting that war started because of NATO expansion since he revealed Putin proposed not to invade Ukraine if NATO promised no more enlargement, which "of course we didn't sign"... He also said text blank that Russia "went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".
@RnaudBertrand - Arnaud Bertrand
There you go. This might be the war in history that's been the most foreseen by the most experts - from so many countries - for the longest time. Incredibly, they were almost universally advocating a clear and feasible way to prevent the war: a commitment to no more NATO enlargement and a neutral Ukraine, like Finland (or Austria) was. Yet we didn't do that. It really, really makes you wonder...