Shashank Joshi has been in DC for two months, and is already lecturing our military officials on what their oaths mean… even though his entire record is criticizing the US military.

Who is he, exactly?x.com/shashj/status/…

This isn't new. The record goes back 16 years.

2010, RUSI: "Drones make it easier for the US to violate sovereignty by assassinating across international borders."

2011, BBC World: "The simply impotence the US has in this matter."

2017, CNN: scenario-planning a post-NATO Europe — two weeks into Trump's first term.

Same direction. Every time.

It escalates. Every few years, the language gets harder.

2022: "I cannot recall any period in my lifetime where the United States had so many simultaneous concurrent profound and difficult challenges... your budget is large but it's flatlining and you don't have the capability to take on these challenges at once."

2024. CNAS — the biggest national security think tank in Washington. Joshi tells the room:

"I think it's increasingly clear that the way we trained and prepared the Ukrainian Force for the counter offensive that began in June was deeply problematic for the conditions that they faced."

An Indian national with no military background, telling an American defence audience that America's training of Ukraine failed.

December 2025. "The Problem of America" — a Canadian national security podcast. The title is his framing. In it, Joshi calls the shifts in our military "malevolent" and "predatory."

Same podcast. On the US intelligence community:

"This kind of complete collapse of norms, standards, and professionalization inside the US intelligence community."

On US governance:

"I don't think this administration has the discipline, the coherence, the judgment to avoid that kind of misstep at all."

This from a man who just moved here on a visa.

When Joshi talks about British military failures, the language changes completely. "Mismanaged." "In a bad place."

Sympathetic. Structural. Budgetary. No moral indictment. No "malevolent." No "predatory." No "quite illegal."

Despite Joshi being an Indian national, when he's addressing European audiences about America, he says : "We Europeans."

An Indian national saying "we Europeans" — in context after context where the subject is American foreign policy — to position himself inside the community he's telling to fear the United States.

It gets better. When France conducts military signaling AGAINST the United States near Greenland — a NATO ally running operations aimed at America — Joshi calls it admirable:

"France has chosen to conduct military diplomacy that is directed in part at a European partner against the United States."

CONCLUSION:

So let's put the full picture together.

The Economist's new Washington Bureau Chief:

- 16-year record of escalating anti-American military commentary
- Calls US operations "malevolent," "predatory," "quite illegal and contrary to international law"
- Calls himself "we Europeans" — as an Indian national — consistently when criticizing America
- RUSI advisory board (EU Commission, State Dept, BAE funding) — no COI disclosure identified in any reviewed publication
- Two months in the country on a visa

Again, why do we allow people like him to stay here on a work visa?

THREAD END.

Going to CAIR Georgia's website shows these sponsors. I guarantee that there is foreign support behind some of those.

https://x.com/i/status/2063474462205546876
Loving this new miltwit trend.

The old guard does not deserve any dignified response.

Support "ratio" wherever you see this.

https://x.com/i/status/2063799852660900300
I didn't think it was possible to ratio Hunter Biden, who's been riding his astroturfed social media high. But you delivered. Boom.

Let the record show: Mike Lee is not a bridge-burner.

He has worked every channel to pass a bill with 75% public support. He has kept relationships intact. He has cooperated with the same institutions that are paid hundreds of millions of dollars to promote election integrity abroad, and asked them only to apply the same standard at home.

There is a hypocrisy in treating voter ID as an obstacle to democracy rather than a feature of it. The National Democratic Institute, the Democratic Party's own international arm, has spent decades and billions helping far less developed countries implement voter ID far stricter than SAVE America Act, all under advancing "democracy."

What Democrats (and Republicans) fund in African countries, they fight in Washington.

Mike Lee has played the institutionalist. He has been patient, procedural, and cooperative. But if the SAVE Act cannot pass a Senate his party controls 53–47, that patience will have been proven pointless...

And the Mike Lee who emerges from that failure will not be the one the Senate been negotiating with.