With the recent wave of bots declaring that Russia is not their enemy, I feel compelled to again share my collection of stories of real people who thought the same, moved there, and found out the hard way. 🧵

Når jeg skriver om Ukraine, Rusland eller genopbygningen af det danske forsvar, sker det samme hver eneste gang. Jeg bliver oversvømmet af kommentarer fra anonyme profiler, der deler konspirationsteorier. Langt de fleste kommentarer handler om, at jeg elsker krig, at jeg er i lommen på forsvarsindustrien, at Ukraine selv var skyld i, at Rusland angreb dem, og at krigen i virkeligheden er NATO's egen skyld. Det seneste skud på stammen er, at vi ikke skal stole på efterretningerne fra Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste. Ligesom der er mange, der uopfordret hentyder til, at krigen nok i virkeligheden handler om World Economic Forum eller Covid–19. Mængden af konspirationsteorier er ærligt talt dybt bekymrende. For lad os være helt klare: Det var Rusland, der invaderede et frit land. Det er Rusland, der bomber boligblokke, børnehospitaler og elnet. Krigen kunne være slut i morgen, hvis Putin ønskede det. Men det kommer ikke til at ske. For Putin ønsker krigen, han ønsker et splittet Vesten og han ønsker, at vi slækker på støtten til Ukraine. Her er de mange konspirationsteorier en del af Ruslands plan. For de vil have os til at tvivle på myndighederne. Også derfor er jeg bekymret over de mange konspirationsteorier, der konstant bliver spredt. Jeg anerkender, at vi bruger mange penge på Ukraine. Det er en hård prioritering, og det er fair at være uenig i den prioritering. Men som forsvarsminister har jeg set, hvad krigen gør, og hvor alvorlig truslen fra Rusland er. Ukrainerne kæmper ikke kun for deres eget land. De holder Rusland tilbage, og dermed kæmper de også for Europas og Danmarks frihed og sikkerhed. Hvis vi lader dem i stikken nu, betaler vi en langt højere pris senere. Derfor står jeg fast. Sammen med vores allierede og sammen med Ukraine. Slava Ukraini 📷

Poor little russia. Europe has apparently spent 200 years trying to wipe it off the map, while Russia somehow spent those same centuries expanding across Siberia, the Caucasus and Central Asia and becoming the largest country on Earth. Presumably all that territory just wandered into Moscow by itself. And the West maliciously tried to trade with Russia, apparently thinking that flooding the Russian state with money would somehow scare the shit out of them…. “Boris, Hitler has just invaded Poland from the west.” “Excellent. We have the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Let’s invade from the east.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Nikolai, Finland won’t give us the territory we demanded around Leningrad.” “Security threat?” “Obviously.” “Invade.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Ivan, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are independent countries sitting next to us.” “That sounds dangerously threatening.” “What should we do?” “Ultimatums, Red Army, occupation, annexation. For security, obviously.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Comrade, the Hungarians are revolting against Soviet domination and want the Russians out.” “Security threat. Send the tanks into Budapest.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Comrade, Czechoslovakia is liberalising.” “Jesus Christ. They might choose their own political system.” “Security threat?” “Massive security threat. Invade.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Comrade, Afghanistan’s government might slip out of our control.” “Security threat. Invade the country, kill its leader and install another one.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Kolya, the Chechens declared independence.” “Security threat. Send the army into Grozny. But send a few guys to blow up apartments and blame it on the Chechens first!” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Misha, Moldova has a separatist conflict in Transnistria.” “Excellent. Back the separatist side and make sure Russian troops are still there decades later.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Dmitri, Georgia is looking westward and there’s a war around South Ossetia.” “Security threat. Send Russian forces into Georgia, then recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Hey Vladimir, Ukraine is moving closer to the EU after Yanukovych abandoned the association agreement and fled.” “Security threat. Take Crimea.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂 “Hey Igor, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the others say they joined NATO because they have some strange historical concern that Russia might someday use military force against its neighbours.” “Ridiculous paranoia.” “So what do we do?” “Demand NATO stop expanding and remove forces and infrastructure from countries that joined after 1997.” “And if they refuse?” “Invade Ukraine.” “Won’t that make every country bordering us think their fear of Russia was justified?” “Shut up, Igor.” 🅂🄴🄲🅄🅁🄸🅃🅈 🄰🅂🅂🅄🅁🄰🄽🄲🄴🅂

A campaign with the slogan "Russia is not my enemy" is currently spreading on X. You know, in reality, it doesn’t matter how you personally feel about Russia. What matters is what Putin and the Kremlin elites want to - and are able to - do to your country. Before the war, most Ukrainians considered Russians to be neighbors, and many had relatives and friends in Russia. Now they are killing us. Russia will not be your enemy only when you are strong enough to defend yourself.

And this is exactly why I have spoken so brutally about the accounts elevating draft dodgers as heroes or martyrs for refusing service to their country. This is the op, ladies and gentlemen. It is Ukraine today. But it will not stop with Ukraine tomorrow. The larger project is the hollowing out of service itself - the gutting of sacrifice, the degradation of duty, the sneering contempt for the warrior, and the moral elevation of the man who refuses to stand when his country calls. That poison does not remain contained to one war or one nation. Left unanswered, it eats free societies from the inside out. There is a war on the American mind. There is a war for the Western mind. And one of its most dangerous weapons is convincing free people that nothing is worth defending, nothing is worth sacrificing for, and no obligation exists beyond the self. For years, we were warned that the warmongers would destroy democracy. Perhaps we should have worried more about the peacemongers, the peace-at-any-price crowd - the people willing to reduce freedom to a feeling rather than defend it as a state of being. The people who believe peace means submission and survival is more sacred than liberty. There are moments in history when the choices are dark. When duty is costly. When freedom demands something from every single one of us. My language reflects that reality. And it will continue to do so. I make no apology for it. We are not ready for what is coming.

I am Dutch, living in the Netherlands, and since Russia has killed 200 of my countrymen, started a war of imperialism and genocide on my continent, threatens my country constantly, influences my elections, bribes my politicians, spreads disinformation, ideas trollneteorks on a large scale to influence the public debate and undermine my countries democracy, sabotages, spies on and cyberattacks my country, Russia is, despite not me wanting it to be, my enemy. 🖕🇷🇺

I’ve been reading a biography of Lincoln and I came across his popular quote about public sentiment: "In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." It reminds me of a quote from the movie “Gladiator”: "I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them, and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom, and still, they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate; it's the sand of the Colosseum. He'll bring them death, and they will love him for it." Those who wield true power appear to be those who have the ability to influence and sway public opinion. An example from today is Trump’s stance toward Ukraine. Since approximately 70% of Americans support Ukraine vs Russia he is restricted in how favorable he can be with Putin and Russia and how hard he can be with Ukraine and Zelensky. Putin knows the power of influence on the people of democracies. That’s why he’s invested $ in influence operations across the Western world. He seems to have a fairly good return on investment in this area, too.

It is utter nonsense to equate a sensible outcome for Ukraine with a maximalist set of demands. The terms follow logically from the objective. We start with the question of what we want for Ukraine: a sovereign state that is free to develop on its own and strong enough that Russia cannot credibly threaten it again. 1. Ukraine cannot be required to surrender territory as the price of peace. Territorial gains would give Russia defensible forward positions from which to rebuild, rearm, and potentially attempt the remainder later. More importantly, if military aggression produces durable territorial gains, it changes the expected payoff from trying again. If Russia instead emerges from the war having gained nothing territorially despite enormous costs, the incentive structure is very different. 2. Political security assurances are insufficient. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum provided Ukraine with American, British, and Russian security assurances, but those assurances plainly did not deter Russia. Nor can Ukraine reasonably assume that political promises made by one government will necessarily bind its successors. A credible settlement therefore requires something much closer to NATO: binding commitments backed by integrated military planning, substantial capabilities, and preferably forces whose presence makes intervention in another Russian attack effectively unavoidable. Ukraine must also retain the ability to defend itself rather than making its survival dependent entirely upon foreign political decisions. 3. There is also a precedent problem. If Russia concludes that coercive force produced a positive return, that experience will enter its calculations in any future confrontation with Ukraine or even Europe. Any settlement must therefore make the expected cost of renewed aggression substantially greater than its expected benefit. That rules out any settlement requiring Ukraine to surrender territory or military strength in exchange for political security assurances. It also implies several things: 1. Russia should withdraw from all internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, restoring Ukraine's 1991 borders. 2. Ukraine must be permitted to maintain a large, technologically advanced military, with future NATO membership remaining available to it. 3. Russia should be required to pay reparations for the immense destruction caused by its war of aggression. Apart from compensating Ukraine, imposing those costs changes the prospective price of future aggression. 4. There must be accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including cooperation with competent international tribunals, and Russia must return Ukrainian children who were unlawfully deported or forcibly transferred. Whether Russia's present leadership would accept such terms is another question entirely. It probably will not do so while it believes continued war offers a better expected payoff. The purpose of sustained military, economic, and diplomatic pressure is to change that calculation until ending the war becomes preferable to continuing it. Unfortunately, the Trump administration appears to be operating under the delusion that it can force Ukraine into accepting a terrible deal simply for the sake of achieving one. It cannot (quite apart from the fact that it has lost much of its leverage by largely ending direct American military aid to Ukraine). Worse, its continued pressure on Ukraine gives Moscow reason to believe that prolonging the war may eventually produce concessions that Russia cannot win on the battlefield. As long as Russia believes that continued fighting may be rewarded in this way, it has an incentive to continue. A future American administration must understand that any viable settlement has to leave Ukraine militarily strong and capable of deterring another Russian attack.

A common and annoying critique of my posts on Ukraine is that NATO is somehow at fault or that NATO has gone too far. It is not and has not. NATO has, on the other hand and foolishly in my opinion, been deterred from direct involvement in Ukraine partly by Russia's nuclear threats and the fear of escalation they were intended to create. Trainers, special forces, and even a no-fly zone over Western Ukraine should always have been options if Russia had proved recalcitrant (which it has), as well as advanced weaponry with no constraints on its use beyond those required by international humanitarian law. NATO can hardly be accused of being cavalier about war when its response has been so painfully muted. NATO is primarily a defensive alliance and never declared any intention of initiating a conflict with Russia. To claim otherwise is to ignore the historical record. NATO expansion was largely the result of Central and Eastern European states seeking membership because they feared Russian domination or invasion, fears for which both Soviet and Russian history provided ample evidence: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia. These states were not dragged unwillingly into NATO as part of some Western plan to encircle Russia. They actively sought the protection of the alliance. NATO's membership process requires states to apply and existing members to agree unanimously; no treaty between NATO and Russia gave Moscow a veto over the sovereign choices of Eastern European states. And, rather obviously, those Eastern European states were correct to take the threat seriously. Ukraine is the evidence.

I wrote about the state of AI, why I’m concerned about the next few years, and the choices we need to make to keep the future in humanity’s hands. An Alien Mind: openai.com/index/an-alien-mi…

Yesterday, President Trump said that the US will ask Europe to repay the money the US spent on Ukraine. My thoughts on that: First and foremost, the people of Ukraine are deeply grateful to the United States for all the assistance provided! Indeed, Ukraine has received real and massive military assistance from the United States - $67.8 billion in committed defense articles and services: over 10,000 Javelin systems, over 3,000 Stingers, dozens of HIMARS, Patriot, and NASAMS systems, Abrams tanks, Bradley and Stryker fighting vehicles, howitzers, and millions of artillery shells. Part of the U.S. assistance was provided as non-repayable grants. Aid to Ukraine also included U.S. defense spending and orders placed with American industry. The cost of aid to Ukraine and the economic and security benefits for the U.S. existed simultaneously. First, the U.S. did not transfer $195 billion to Ukraine. This figure represents the total budgetary framework of the U.S. response to the war, which includes not only weapons and financial aid to Ukraine, but also U.S. troops in Europe, the replenishment of U.S. military stockpiles, purchases from its own military-industrial complex, logistics, and agency operations. As of March 31, 2026, out of $195 billion, $177.8 billion had been obligated and $116 billion actually disbursed. Moreover, roughly $4.2 billion within this system already came from allies via the PURL, PURL, rather than from the American taxpayer. Second, nearly $50 billion of this amount was not aid to Ukraine at all - it was U.S. spending on its own troops in Europe. This includes EUCOM, the European Deterrence Initiative, troop deployments, transport, logistics, infrastructure, and sustaining the U.S. military presence. These were real U.S. budget expenditures caused by the war, but Ukraine never received these funds. Presenting them as an American "gift to Ukraine" that Europe must now compensate for is incorrect. Third, nearly $46 billion more was allocated to replenish the U.S.’s own arsenals. The U.S. provided weapons to Ukraine from its own stockpiles, after which the Pentagon received funds to replace them. In effect, Ukraine might have received an older system, while new budget funds went to American manufacturers to produce new weapons for the U.S. As a result, these expenditures simultaneously funded the rearmament of the U.S. military and the operations of American factories. In other words, tens of billions of dollars in military assistance did not go directly to Ukraine - they were converted into defense contracts inside the United States. Through USAI, new systems, ammunition, and military services for Ukraine are funded through manufacturers. Through replenishment, U.S. companies produce replacements for what the Pentagon transferred to Ukraine. The beneficiaries include Lockheed Martin, RTX, General Dynamics, Boeing, BAE Systems, Oshkosh, AM General, AeroVironment, L3Harris, and a large network of suppliers. Fourth, the United States gained just corporate revenue from this spending, but also new production capacity. Funds went toward expanding production of 155mm ammunition, PAC-3 MSE, GMLRS, Javelins, and other systems. The war exposed shortages in the U.S. military-industrial complex while at the same time providing the Pentagon with funding to address them. In other words, part of the assistance to Ukraine became an investment in America’s own defense industrial base. Fifth, direct transfers of money to the Ukrainian government were far smaller than the political claims about "hundreds of billions." The largest block of direct budget support amounted to around $30 billion and was provided mainly through the World Bank for civilian expenditures - salaries for Ukrainian teachers and medical workers, pensions, and social payments. There were also humanitarian, energy, and economic programs. This was real financial assistance to Ukraine. But that is precisely why it should be distinguished from the tens of billions spent by the Pentagon inside the United States. Sixth, the narrative that America was paying instead of Europe does not reflect the scale of European assistance. The EU and its member states estimate their total support for Ukraine and Ukrainians at more than €220 billion. According to U.S. accounting, the United States committed $67.8 billion in military assistance, while total security assistance from allies and partners amounted to around $130 billion. The accounting methodologies differ, so these figures should not be mechanically compared dollar for dollar. But they certainly do not show a situation in which America paid while Europe did not. Seventh, Europe is already financing American weapons for Ukraine. Through PURL, allies transfer funds to the United States for the supply of the American weapons to Ukraine and for the replenishment of American stockpiles. By March 2026, the figure was already approximately $4.2 billion. And in the first half of 2026, European donors purchased at least €3 billion worth of weapons for Ukraine from U.S. defense companies. In other words, part of the current system literally works in the opposite direction: European money → the U.S. military-industrial complex → weapons for Ukraine. Yes, the United States provided aid to Ukraine, but not as some enormous free transfer made in place of Europe. In reality, Ukraine received critically important assistance for which we will remain grateful, Europe spent vast sums of its own money, and a significant share of U.S. spending remained inside the United States itself - in the form of new weapons, replenished stockpiles, a strengthened military presence, and multibillion-dollar contracts for the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Thread (1 of 5). Time to set the record straight, MAGAs will say “fake news” but it’s not, and the truth is the truth. A thread on US assistance to Ukraine. Total U.S. defense spending from full scale invasion to today: (Feb. 2022–mid 2026) ~$4.2–4.5 trillion Total U.S. appropriations RELATED to Ukraine ~$195 billion OF THAT: military/security assistance to Ukraine ~$68 billion committed Cont….

This one page changed my life. 42 years ago today, it convinced my parents I shouldn't go back to college. I started by upgrading PCs from a dorm room. Today @Dell is helping build the infrastructure that powers AI, from the edge to some of the world's largest AI factories. You never know which small decision will change everything. Keep building🚀🙏 #PlayNiceButWin

The time to increase pressure on Moscow is now. Our overwhelmingly bipartisan sanctions package will cripple Putin's revenue streams by targeting the energy exports that bankroll Russia's unjust war machine. This is our opportunity to honor Senator Graham's leadership & legacy.

Happy 250th Birthday America! You look great. Actually, you’re showing your age a little bit, if I’m honest. You could use a refresh, maybe a trip to the spa. Some of your airports and trains and roads look like they were built in the 60s. Possibly because they were. Of course, most countries don’t make it to 250. The average modern state lasts 158 to 200 years before running aground. So maybe you should be proud. On the other hand, the Roman Empire made it for about 2,000 years, so maybe you’re still young? My family showed up 60 years ago when my parents met as students at UC Berkeley. Back then, you were the land of entrepreneurship and manifest destiny and opportunity. It was a no-brainer for them to stay here to build a life. Taiwan, where they were from, was largely farms back then. Heck, my father even grew up on a peanut farm. They came to you for a better path. And it worked! You provided a place to build a life. The Dream you offered was real, for them and for their kids. They bought a house for about $35,000 in 1974, the house they took me home to from the hospital. They had a small house and a yellow Chevrolet and pretty soon two kids running around. My Dad went fishing and shared the catch with neighbors if it was particularly bountiful. That’s how I grew up. I was told to get good grades and work hard, and if I did, I too would have the chance to live a good life here. To be an American. I grew up on Back to the Future, The Karate Kid, Casey Kasem’s Top 40, the Mets, all of it. I absorbed the culture like a sponge, went to school, and got a good job. I left that job to have all sorts of adventures, and they worked out eventually. I met Evelyn, got married, and have two young sons now. Americans. Somehow though, all of it got much more difficult than when I grew up. The house my parents bought back in 1974 costs 10 times as much today. The public school system that Evelyn grew up in is showing cracks. All of the value seems to be flowing up to the cloud. Our kids are disappearing into screens. And our anger and frustration doesn’t result in more houses or better schools or more value – it just begets more anger and frustration. We are hosting a lot of people right now for the World Cup. Many are seeing you for the first time. They are digging you – your ranch dressing and Costcos and giant gas stations. Air conditioning everywhere. We have so much promise. In real life, and not through the funhouse mirrors of the screens. You are still awesome. Massive. Abundant. Beautiful. It must be remembered and said as often as possible. Still, there is a sense that you’re a little bit tired. But how can you be – you have another 1,750 years to go to beat the Roman record! So much room to run. Maybe you seem this way because we’re not having as many kids. Kids keep you young. The best are twenty-something year olds who are filled with optimism. They seem less optimistic today, less interested in each other and falling in love. It’s the screens again. As we get older, you seem older. Or maybe again it’s just the roads and trains and airports and if we made them all new you would be too. Or maybe you just need a new and better, more responsive political system. The current one has been in place for 160 years and could desperately use a revamp. It seems overdue. Can we get you an appointment? Anyway, Happy 250th Birthday. We love you. Here’s a gift certificate for a new data center. You’ll love them, we’re building them all over you.

I think one of the most important objectives of education should be learning the right attitude regarding failure. The current system encourages avoiding errors of commission, but the larger errors lie in errors of omission. The goal in life should not be error minimization, but maximization of life, learning, and progress. Minimization of regret, not error. The worst mistake is no mistake. We should all try to adopt Michael Jordan’s phrase: “I have failed again and again and again. And that is why I succeed.” There are no mistakes, only lessons.

An interesting tell to distinguish between a novice investor and a thoughtful investor: The novice is eager to talk about their wins, the thoughtful investor is eager to talk about their mistakes and losses.

What about all the entrepreneurs that risked everything and failed ? Or the ones that are grinding it out, trying to build a business ? You know, the ones that create more than 60 pct of the new jobs in this country. The more successful they are, the more you hate them? Take their money so they can't invest in other founders? Or invest in causes they believe in ? And the ones that fail and get to deduct 3k a year of their losses ? Or went for it and are broke and might never see enough income to offset those losses ? You don't care if they go broke ? 10 pct of the people in this country are entrepreneurs that have started a business. You ever try to help them ? There are plenty of discussions to be had about income inequality. About helping people who are struggling economically. I've talked about a lot of them in my timeline. But in reality, saying "Eat the rich" will end up helping no one except maybe politicians trying to raise money. And probably hurt those in need, as more money is spent playing politics then helping Wealth tax. Unearned income tax. Show me the multi year behavioral analysis, as opposed to simple models, that show more jobs, higher wages and personal wealth will be created for those who need it. I'd love to read them Ideology is not a strategy. Nor is it a plan that has lasting impact on people who need help And so you know. I'm not a believer in trickle down. It's a joke. I am a believer in trickle up. Where we do all we can get to get appreciable assets and higher wages into the hands of people who have to live paycheck to paycheck. I've said before I think raising the federal minimum wage to $20 is smart. When I heard people who worked for a company I invested in (but didn't run) needed government assistance, I made sure they all got raises. It was embarrassing to me that we didn't pay enough. I've made, or helped make, at least a thousand millionaires. And I'll keep working to increase that number And that's the point. The best path to help more people is to work with the people that can help more people. If you demonize business people , you just make it harder for them to help anyone. I'm not saying there aren't greedy, blood sucking business people that will do anything for a dollar. But they are a small minority. Most entrepreneurs realize they are blessed. They want to find ways to help. They think they can use the same skills that built their business to help people. And they can. They can hire more. They can give raises. They can educate. And they do all these things to help. I've sat with Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and candidates,and asked them why they aren't meeting with businesses that make and sell the products that have become unaffordable, and asking them what can be done to reduce prices. I do this continuously regarding healthcare. It's easy to see where the friction and increased pricing is coming from. Why (the politicians ) aren't you meeting with them and asking them to change ? Offering to support those that do raise wages, lower prices , improve benefits. Politicians just won't do it. They prefer the donations. I did shark tank for 15 years purely to show people they can start small, grow their businesses, and help not only themselves, but their employees and their communities as well. And thats exactly what has happened. Demonizing those that have success is counterproductive to every benefit you want to help bring to people.

The President’s Big Beautiful Bill, the Iran War, and Republican spending bills will create a $2 trillion budget DEFICIT in 2026. Financing just the new debt costs more than all federal road & bridge projects, and we will be making those new interest payments each year, forever.