Janet E Silver

5.5K posts

Janet E Silver banner
Janet E Silver

Janet E Silver

@silverjes

Media Relations & Strategic Communications Leader

Ottawa,Ontario Katılım Mayıs 2009
1.3K Takip Edilen942 Takipçiler
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Gandalv
Gandalv@Microinteracti1·
Robert Mueller died last night. He was 81 years old. He had a wife who loved him for sixty years. He had two daughters, one of whom he met for the first time in Hawaii, in 1969, on a few hours of military leave, before he got back on the plane and returned to Vietnam. He had grandchildren. He had a faith he practiced quietly, without performance. He had, in the way of men who have seen real things and survived them, a quality that is increasingly rare and increasingly mocked in the country he spent his life serving. He had integrity. And tonight the President of the United States said good! I have been sitting with that word for hours now. Good. One syllable. The thing you say when the coffee is hot or the traffic is moving. The thing a man who has never had to bury anyone, never had to sit in the specific silence of a room where someone is newly absent, reaches for when he wants the world to know he is satisfied. Good. The daughters are crying and the wife is alone in the house and good. I want to speak directly to the Americans reading this. Not the political Americans. Just the human ones. The ones who have lost a father. The ones who know what it is to be in that first hour, when you keep forgetting and then remembering again, when ordinary objects become unbearable, when the world outside the window seems obscene in its indifference. I want to ask you, simply, to hold that feeling for a moment, and then to understand that the man you elected looked at it and typed a single word. Good. This is not a country having a bad day. I need you to understand that. Countries have bad days. Elections go wrong. Leaders disappoint. Institutions bend. But there is a different thing, a rarer and more terrible thing, that happens when the moral center of a place simply gives way. Not dramatically. Not with a single catastrophic event. But quietly, in increments, until one evening a president celebrates the death of an old man whose family is still warm with grief, and enough people find it acceptable that it becomes the weather. Just the weather. That is what is happening. That is what has happened. The world knows. From Tokyo to Oslo, from London to Buenos Aires, people are not angry at America tonight. Anger would mean there was still something to fight for, some remaining faith to be betrayed. What I see, in the reactions from everywhere that is not here, is something older and sadder than anger. It is the look people get when they have waited a long time for someone they love to find their way back, and have finally understood that they are not coming. America is being grieved. Past tense, almost. The idea of it. The thing it represented to people who had nothing else to believe in, who came here with everything they owned in a single bag because they had heard, somehow, across an ocean, that this was the place where decency was written into the walls. That idea is not resting. It is not suspended. It is being buried, in real time, with 7,450 likes before dinner. And the church said nothing. Seventy million people have decided that this man, this specific man who has cheated everyone he has ever made a promise to, who has mocked the disabled and the dead and the grieving, who celebrated tonight while a family wept, is an instrument of God. The pastors who made that bargain did not just trade away their credibility. They traded away the thing that made them worth listening to in the first place. The cross they carry now is a costume. The faith they preach is a loyalty oath with scripture attached. When the history of American Christianity is written, this will be the chapter they skip at seminary. Now I want to talk about the men who stand next to him. Because this is the part that actually breaks my heart. JD Vance is not a bad man. I have to say that, because it is true, and because the truth matters even now, especially now. Marco Rubio is not a bad man. Lindsey Graham is not a bad man. They are idiots, but not bad, as in BAD! These are men with mothers who raised them and children who love them and friends who remember who they were before all of this. They are not monsters. Monsters are simple. Monsters do not cost you anything emotionally because there is nothing in them to mourn. These men are something more painful than monsters. They are men who knew better, and know better still, and will get up tomorrow and do it again. Every small compromise they made had a reason. Every moment they looked the other way had a justification that sounded, at the time, almost reasonable. And now they have arrived here, at a place where a president celebrates the death of an old man and they will find a way, on television, to say nothing that means anything, and they will go home to houses where children who carry their name are waiting, and they will say goodnight, and they will say nothing. Their oldest friends are watching. The ones who knew Rubio when he still believed in something. Who knew Graham when he said, out loud, on the record, that this exact man would destroy the Republican Party and deserve it. Who sat next to Vance and thought here is someone worth knowing. Those friends are not angry tonight. They moved through anger a long time ago. What they feel now is the quiet, irrecoverable sadness of watching someone disappear while still being present. Of watching a person they loved choose, again and again, to become less. That is what cowardice costs. Not the coward. The people who loved him. And in the comments tonight, the followers celebrate. People who ten years ago brought casseroles to grieving neighbours. Who stood in the rain at gravesides and meant the words they said. Who told their children that we do not speak ill of the dead because the dead were someone's beloved. Those people are tonight typing gleeful things about a man whose daughters are not yet done crying. And they feel clean doing it. Righteous. Because somewhere along the way the thing they were given in exchange for their decency was the feeling of belonging to something, and that feeling is very hard to give up even when you can no longer remember what you gave for it. When Trump is gone, they will still be here. Standing in the silence where the noise used to be. Without the permission the crowd gave them. Without the pastor who told them their cruelty was holy. They will be alone with what they said and what they cheered and what they chose to become, and there will be no one left to tell them it was righteous. That morning is coming. Robert Mueller flew across the Pacific on military leave to hold his newborn daughter for a few hours before returning to the war. He came home. He buried his dead with honour. He served presidents of both parties because he understood that the institution was larger than any one man. He told his grandchildren that a lie is the worst thing a person can do, that a reputation once lost cannot be recovered, and he lived that, every day, in the quiet and unglamorous way of people who actually believe what they say. He was the kind of American the world used to point to when it needed to believe the story was true. He died last night. His wife is alone in their house in Georgetown. His daughters are learning what the world is without him in it. And somewhere in the particular hush that falls over a family in the first hours of loss, the most powerful man and the biggest loser on earth sent a message to say he was glad. The world that loved what America was supposed to be is grieving tonight. Not for Robert Mueller only. For the country that produced him and then became this. For the distance between what was promised and what was delivered. For the suspicion, growing quieter and more certain with each passing month, that the America people believed in was always partly a story, and the story is over now, and there is nothing yet to replace it. That is all it needed to be. A man died. His family is broken open with grief. That is all it needed to be. Instead the President said good. And the country that once stood for something looked away 🇺🇸 Gandalv / @Microinteracti1
Gandalv tweet media
English
4K
15.4K
49K
3.3M
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Daniel Dale
Daniel Dale@ddale8·
President Trump claimed that “nobody,” not a single expert, expected Iran to retaliate against US allies in the region. In reality, many experts had warned Iran would do this – and Iran had repeatedly said it would. Trump claimed, as he has for more than a decade, that his 2000 book warned that Osama bin Laden was going to attack the World Trade Center and that the authorities needed to take care of him. In reality, the book contained no warnings or advice about bin Laden at all. Trump claimed that media outlets coordinated with Iran to spread fake videos of a US aircraft carrier on fire and should be charged with "TREASON." But the White House couldn’t provide a single example of a US outlet that spread the fake videos of the carrier; in reality, multiple US outlets debunked them. Trump claimed a former president had privately told him he wished he’d attacked Iran like Trump did. Aides to all four living former presidents say they haven’t spoken to Trump since the war began. Fact check on some of his Sunday and Monday statements: cnn.com/2026/03/17/pol…
English
139
1.8K
4.4K
136.3K
Janet E Silver
Janet E Silver@silverjes·
This is not a joke, appliance parts missing from @BoschHomeIn to vent outside and Bosch Canada does not want to send missing parts for outside transition, so customer care writes that the necessary parts are "cosmetic." That is a new one!
English
0
0
0
50
Janet E Silver
Janet E Silver@silverjes·
For anyone visiting Porto, Portugal, book fully refundable stays with @Caldeireiros 95 by LovelyStay because if weather or other emergencies prevent travel and stay at this location, they will not provide any compassionate compensation.
English
0
0
1
74
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Kaitlan Collins
Kaitlan Collins@kaitlancollins·
President Trump argues the country should move on from the Epstein files and lashes out when asked about the survivors' response to the latest release from the Justice Department.
English
5.7K
7.9K
34.4K
1.8M
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Daractenus
Daractenus@Daractenus·
Trump: "It is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in a hospital"
English
2.1K
15.2K
93.9K
4.3M
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Al Gore
Al Gore@algore·
For decades, the world’s scientists and governments have worked together to tackle the most significant challenge of our lifetimes: the climate crisis. The ongoing work of the IPCC, UNFCCC, and other global institutions remains essential to safeguarding humanity’s future. The Trump Administration's decision to remove the United States from these vital organizations sends the wrong message to our allies abroad and fails to protect Americans from increasingly dangerous impacts of the climate crisis at home. The Trump Administration has been turning its back on the climate crisis since day one, removing the United States from the Paris Agreement, dismantling America’s scientific infrastructure, curbing access to greenhouse gas emissions data, and ending essential investments in the clean energy transition. They've done this at the behest of the oil industry, so that billionaires can rake in even more money while polluting our planet and endangering people in America and around the world. By withdrawing from the IPCC, UNFCCC, and the other vital international partnerships, the Trump Administration is undoing decades of hard-won diplomacy, attempting to undermine climate science, and sowing distrust around the world. Fortunately, 198 minus one does not equal zero. While the U.S. federal government sits on the sidelines, world leaders, local and state governments, and the private sector will continue to move forward with the clean energy transition and uphold the goals set forth in the Paris Agreement because it is in their best interest to do so. Clean energy remains the most affordable, scalable, and sustainable solution to meet the energy demands of the future and with this reckless decision the United States will only be left behind.
English
253
641
2.1K
83.9K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Pete Buttigieg
Pete Buttigieg@PeteButtigieg·
"Iron laws of the world"? Some of America's most important national accomplishments are about leading humanity away from this kind of bullshit. If we let ideologues like Stephen Miller drag us back into a world where brute force is all that matters, all of us will be less safe.
English
2K
4.8K
17.4K
316.4K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Protect Kamala Harris ✊
Protect Kamala Harris ✊@DisavowTrump20·
Rob Reiner spent decades defending democracy and fighting for equality - even when it wasn’t easy or popular. At a moment when silence is safer, his willingness to speak out is a reminder that protecting democracy requires courage. RETWEET to honor Reiner's legacy of justice ♥️
Protect Kamala Harris ✊ tweet media
English
728
9.3K
24.4K
981.6K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Michael McFaul
Michael McFaul@McFaul·
If true, very disturbing
Eerik N Kross 🇪🇪🇺🇦🇮🇱🇪🇺@EerikNKross

According to Reuters, the United States has informed European NATO allies that it no longer intends to provide conventional assets for Europe’s defence after 2027. While this approach is not entirely new, the combination of a clear deadline and the new National Security Strategy raises the question of whether Washington has fully thought through the implications. As a thought experiment, I attempted to estimate what it would actually cost the United States to withdraw its conventional military assets from Europe. Naturally, there may be elements I am not aware of, and this is not intended to be exhaustive. However, the resulting figures are very likely on the low side of what the real costs would be. Below is the picture under three scenarios: an abrupt withdrawal, a rapid withdrawal, and a gradual phase-out. Summary: A full U.S. military withdrawal from Europe, including Army, Air Force, Navy presence, pre-positioned stocks and C2, and relocation of those capabilities back to U.S. or other theatres, would likely cost on the order of $70–140 billion in one-off and capital expenses. This would be spread over roughly 5–10 years in a planned scenario. An abrupt pullout, maybe technically possible in 1–3 years, would sharply raise short-term costs and political damage, while leaving major capability gaps and storage problems. Any such move would also increase long-term operational costs if the U.S. ever needed to project power back into Europe. Analysis: 1. What are we actually talking about removing? Very rough, but ballpark: Personnel in Europe (DoD only): 80–90,000 active-duty US troops in Europe (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) plus several tens of thousands dependents and DoD civilians. Major Army formations: 2nd Cavalry Regiment, rotational Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, combat aviation brigades, artillery, air defence, logistics brigades, SOF elements. Air Force: Several fighter wings (Germany, UK, Italy), heavy airlift and ISR presence (Ramstein, Mildenhall, etc.), plus support units. Navy: 6th Fleet HQ, forward-deployed ships & subs, Rota (Spain) destroyers, logistics/support. C2 - strategic enablers: EUCOM HQ, AFRICOM HQ, AIRCOM & AOC support, CAOC integration, SIGINT/ISR sites, pre-positioned stocks (APS), depots, medical facilities, fuel farms, communication backbone, etc. So we’re not just talking “some brigades and jets” — it’s a whole theatre infrastructure. 2. Types of cost one would need to count Physical relocation costs Moving people, families, equipment, vehicles, aircraft, munitions. Shipping, strategic airlift, de-rigging pre-positioned stocks. New infrastructure & basing costs Building or expanding bases in the US (I think the military term is CONUS) or elsewhere to receive relocated units. Housing, schools, depots, ranges, HQs, hardened shelters, IT, comms. Contractual and political costs Base closure, environmental remediation, penalties, host-nation agreements. Possibly early termination of long-term deals, SOFA adjustments. (Sure, the US can probably just not care about this, but the political cost for not caring would be a generationl reputation damage in Europe) Operational opportunity costs Reduced forward presence means more time & money to come back if needed. Increased strategic lift requirement for any future operation in Europe and Middle East. 3. Rough money estimate (order-of-magnitude) A) Moving the stuff Hardware in theatre: Several armoured brigade equivalents: Say 1,000–1,500 heavy vehicles (tanks, IFVs, SPGs, MLRS, etc.). Thousands of other tactical vehicles, trailers, support assets. Dozens to low hundreds of aircraft (fighters, transports, helicopters, ISR platforms). Massive amounts of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, comms gear, medical stock, etc. Moving can be: Strategic airlift (C-17, charter) – extremely expensive per ton. Sealift (RO/RO ships, containers) – cheaper, but months of port/rail logistics. If you treat it like a large, multi-year retrograde and use lots of sealift direct transport bill might be on the order of: $10–20 billion (over several years) That includes unit moves, families, and large-scale movement of pre-positioned equipment. B) Building and expanding bases in new locations (US or even SE Asia) This is the big one. Consider: A single new or massively expanded Army base with housing for 15,000–20,000 people, training areas, depots, motor pools, HQ facilities, hospital capacity etc. can easily cost $5–10+ billion over a decade. Air bases with: Hardened shelters Upgraded runways and taxiways Ammo storage Fuel infrastructure Security, tech, and climate hardening can run to multiple billions each. C2 & HQ infrastructure (replacing EUCOM/AFRICOM footprints, relocating data centres, comms nodes etc.) is another multi-billion line. If you assume: The U.S. would need 3–5 major additional / expanded Army facilities, 2–3 major Air Force hubs, plus significant expansion at existing ports, depots, and training ranges, we are probably in the ballpark of: $50–100 billion in new or expanded infrastructure over, don't know, 10–15 years depending how gold-plated and dispersed you make it. C) Soft financial costs Base closure & remediation in Europe: Environmental cleanup, infrastructure handover, legal obligations sums up to many billions over time. Again, this is often politically obfuscated. Re-tooling pre-positioned stock concept: APS sites in Europe would need to be replaced with stateside or alternate-theatre storage (e.g. CONUS, Indo-Pacific). That’s more construction & logistics. Let’s conservatively throw another $10–20 billion over time for closure/cleanup/contractual and APS restructuring. D) Total order of magnitude Add the pieces: Transport: $10–20 bn New/expanded infrastructure: $50–100 bn Closure/cleanup/APS reshuffle: $10–20 bn This is very plausilby $70–140 billion one-off / capital + transition cost spread over a decade or so. That’s not counting: Higher recurring cost of projecting power back into Europe later, Extra spending on strategic lift, The cost to rebuild political credibility if the US ever wants to return becuase believe it, if Europe has to build up the same stuff and will become strategically capable and independent in say 10 years, why would Europe want the US back? E) Three scenarios (time) Scenario A – “Crash pullout and political rupture” Timeline: 1–3 years Politically motivated, rapid drawdown (like “bring them home now”). Priorities: personnel out fast, families first, then high-value kit, then what you can salvage. You use a lot of airlift and surge sealift. Bases are left “warm” or mothballed; minimal remediation at first. Feasible in a few years, but: Operational chaos Very high short-term logistics costs Enormous political damage in NATO Many assets stored in suboptimal conditions until proper bases are ready. Scenario B – “Planned strategic re-posturing” Timeline: 5–10 years You phase out presence gradually: First close some smaller sites. Consolidate remaining forces into fewer hubs. Meanwhile, build or expand bases in the U.S. (or possibly in the Indo-Pacific or dont know, "the Western Hemisphere"). Equipment moves in waves; some pre-positioned stocks get re-shored or scrapped/modernised. Remediation and host-nation negotiations happen in parallel. This is politically and logistically more realistic. 5–7 years is probably the minimum if Washington wants to avoid major disruption. Does it? 10 years gives time to align with budget cycles, procurement, and new doctrine. Scenario C Something like “Silent hollowing out” Timeline: 10-15 or more years Officially U.S. “remains” in Europe, but: Gradual troop reductions No new major units deployed Pre-positioned stocks quietly reduced C2 footprints slimmed down Cost is lower because things are not replaced and slowly shrinking. This is less “withdraw and relocate” and more “let it wither”, but it’s often how great powers reduce presence. F) Strategic implications for US (not political, thats a whole separate story) Pure force-planning says: relocating everything back to US or anywhere makes future operations in Europe much more expensive. More airlift, more tankers, more sealift, and more pre-planned surge plans just to get back to where you were. C2 that is physically remote (e.g. controlling a Baltic war from the U.S.) is slower, more fragile, and politically less credible. Downside for NATO's Eastern flank is obvious, but this might not be Americas priority problem for now: US relocation changes the risk calculus for Russia: a U.S. that has physically left Europe has to decide and mobilise to come back, which is exactly the window for opportunistic aggression. Finally, I did calculations for Europe to replace US conventional assets and strategic enablers. I cam up with a rough 300 billion number. So in total. It would cost the US about 2/3 to leave and lose control of European theatre what it would cost for Europe to replace the US assets and become strategically independent. Im not sure who loses more in this equation.

English
106
465
1.9K
230.5K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Jonathan Karl
Jonathan Karl@jonkarl·
"The Retribiution presidency" Here's what John Bolton said 12 days ago when I asked him he was worried Trump would come after him ...
English
118
188
585
37.8K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Washington Week with The Atlantic | PBS
"It's very unlikely this was the first time that they were using Signal," said @peterbakernyt. "It raises the questions: ... How much have they been doing this? What kinds of conversations have they been doing? Have they preserved the records? And who else has been listening?"
English
88
1.1K
2.9K
60.7K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Nathaniel Dove
Nathaniel Dove@NathanielDove_·
Ahead of Poilievre’s press conference, his comms team announcing he’s only taking five questions from preselected media: True North Y Media SouthAsianDaily Radio-Canada Rebel News Oxygen Canada News When asked why, his team just said “that’s what we’re doing today.”
Nathaniel Dove tweet media
English
1.1K
527
2.4K
458.3K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Jim Sciutto
Jim Sciutto@jimsciutto·
Consider the precedent here - the U.S. demanding fully half a country’s resources as payback for aiding its defense: Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said the United States was demanding that Kyiv “give away” 50% of Ukraine’s rare minerals while offering no security guarantees in exchange. He immediately rejected the suggestion, saying: “I cannot, I cannot sell our state. That's all.”
English
94
373
1.2K
69K
Janet E Silver retweetledi
Tymofiy Mylovanov
Tymofiy Mylovanov@Mylovanov·
Zelensky pushes back on Trump with facts, not rhetoric. Zelensky: The U.S. has provided Ukraine with $67 billion in military aid and $31 billion in budget support. Trump’s $500 billion fossil fuel claim isn’t a serious conversation. 1/
English
2.4K
12.4K
68.6K
6.4M