Ingrid Müller

Non-partisan criticism & analysis on tech, ethics, and the erosion of rights. Opinions based on facts, not tribalism -- we don't need to agree on everything.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

US efforts to end the war are noticed worldwide. It is indeed a great display of diplomacy from the US.

EU leaders, however, don't seem to acknowledge the advantage that Romania, as a EU and NATO country along the Black Sea, is bringing to these discussions—it essentially provides a security guarantee to Ukraine.
Romanian leaders themselves also seem oblivious...

Peace talks should address the "no border changes with (the threat of) violence" principle. Historically, the people from these regions, in a challenging geo-political landscape, have fought for millenia to defended their lands from the whims of empires and countless invaders... Sovereignty and territorial integrity are no longer negotiable in this century.

Nevertheless, satisfactory resolution of this conflict does warrant a Nobel Peace Prize for the US President.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

Yet, Finland does not border Ukraine...

Russia had no objection for Finland to join NATO but it does object to the 2008 Bucharest declaration and it did request the US to withdraw form Easter Europe and the Eastern flanc of NATO, along the black Sea, mainly Romania.

In order to understand this you would need some geo-political knowledge...

Also, useless you decide to verify your identity, I will no longer address your flawed arguments, as you are probably a bot or a political troll with an agenda.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

@scottwww7 @WhiteHouse Great question, it would be interesting to know.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

The US VP is right that there's an attack of free speech in RO and EU.

However, the issue with the Ro elections, although unconstitutionally cancelled, is more complex than presented.

1. The former candidate, banned in the re-do, was not charged randomly but with the very acts that led to the cancellation - i.e. he perjured himself, claiming he spent zero (literally) money in the campaign and refused to disclose who paid for his social media presence.

2. Also, the elections system is different in Ro than the US. Votes in the 1st round are atomized (a multiparty system, there were 11 candidates), in the 2nd votes based on coalitions. It's customary more people vote in the 2nd round and rally against or for a certain candidate. More likely than not, he would not have won the cancelled elections. Despite his claims, elections were not cancelled to prevent him from winning, he was not the "people's candidate" as presented, voters had not even heard of him before the elections -- he was a political acolyte and intelligence agent since before 1898, but not active in public politics. He was merely a political actor made famous by a carefully orchestrated pre-election social media campaign (regardless of the foreign interference) and by the support of foreign media after the cancellation when he started claiming he won the elections (not true, a re-do is mandatory in Ro) - democracy was the victim not him.

3. As for the nationalist candidate in the re-do, it's perfectly reasonable that people would not have voted for him regardless of what was indeed an obvious smear campaign, he lost support after the 1st round through his own actions. Right before the 2nd round he:
- refused to participate in debates,
- `threatened to lay off 500,000 public officers (even if DOGE is needed in RO, this is not how you frame it right before an election, and DOGE is about cutting waste and fraud and expenses, not simply about firing people),
- insulted women,
- insulted neurodivergent people,
- went on a foreign TV station and insulted their president in his own country,
- inexplicably closed his social media accounts days before the 2nd round,
- instead of campaigning in Ro he went abroad for photo ops with foreign politicians that are not popular in RO,
- his own party barely posted about him on social media during the campaign,
- congratulated (literally) the US for taking RO out of Visa Waiver (regardless of the reason the US did this for, as a representative of RO he should not use this to get back at political opponents - who were not even affiliated with his opponent in the 2nd round of presidential elections). He showed he does not care about the RO voters.
- And he kept saying he acts at the behest of the banned candidate - who was deemed a national security threat (no due process for his banning notwithstanding), so not the best idea to gain voters.

Btw, there are even allegations that the nationalist candidate in the re-do he sold out the elections because of this behavior.

4. And there are many other aspects that are --deliberately or not -- omitted when journalist talk about the issue with the Romanian elections.

So, while there could have been manipulation tactics deployed by the government in the re-do, similar to what happened with the cancelled elections, the difference is that no one claimed to have spent no money on their campaign while being promoted on social media by foreign agents (most importantly, allegedly Russia - and that is the operative issue).

5. What the US does not understand is that European countries consider Russia an existential threat. It's a completely different politic-geographical landscape. For US, Russia was merely an opponent during the Cold War and competitor in the Space Race and Nuclear Race. For Europe, Russia (and the Soviet Union, and the Russian Empire before that) was the aggressor for millenia. Barely a country in Europe that was not historically invaded, had its territory annexed, and its people oppressed by it.

Russia says it "has its motives" for its current actions. That the West has "orchestrated a coup" (in other countries). The question is, even if it were true, what does it have to do with Russia? Regardless of Russia's declared motives for its current actions, sovereignty is a red line for any country.

"Preemptive-self defense" -- because that's what Russia is essentially claiming in opposing the expansion of NATO -- is not recognized in international law, despite the fact that previous US administrations have tried to force this doctrine. Besides, what is actually threatened by the expansion of NATO is soviet imperialism and Russia's influence on Europe, not its sovereignty.

Ironically, a rules based order, opposing the law-based order, is what Russia has been criticizing the West for.

6. So, not to justify undemocratic actions of RO and other EU (including elections cancellations), but intelligence agencies' interference is rightfully (up to a point) deemed national security when it comes to preventing foreign interference in an election.

If the US wants to help the people of Europe against the undemocratic actions by their governments and prevent censorship, it should not dismiss their legitimate concerns about the Russian threat on their sovereignty.

Probably the same approach would help when it comes to ending the war in the region.

7. Sure, the undemocratic oppression of the voters and the censoring of their freedom to express whatever views they want, is a real threat. Governments have used censorship for many reasons, and have illegally claimed national security to suppress free speech on anything that threatens their narrative.

And, ironically, this is exactly how foreign agents gain traction with people that are rightfully opposing autocratic governments.

But, journalists (and politicians) should not conflate real issues with fake narratives.

8. Yes, requesting the censoring of "conservative voices" on social media before an election is illegal. Perfectly plausible governments would request illegal censorship, given how they acted lately. But just as plausible is that it was a legit national security request given the facts.

It;'s commendable that the CEO of Telegram came out publicly about this -- and there's no doubt there's a lot of illegal pressure (or actions breaching fundamental rights even if enacted into law) from governments on social media companies for censorship -- but his citizenship is a conflict of interest given that Russia is the one alleged to interfere.

So until there's more context on what was actually said it unclear if it was illegal - or even undemocratic. Requesting to censor foreign agents interfering with the outcome of an election is not illegal.

9. But, the US VP was also right when it said that if democracy can be destroyed with a social media campaign paid for by foreign agents, it was not strong to begin with.

In taking unconstitutional actions to "protect democracy" governments are eroding the very idea of democracy.

They keep thinking that they still control the narrative unchecked.

They don't realize that the people, the individuals, have more and more power to act directly in their own interest.

Governments can no longer have mass media manipulate people. People get their information directly, thanks to platforms like X.

10. But the good thing is is that people will soon no longer politicians to act for them - or more accurately to pretend to act in their interest while caring only about themselves. Governments will be soon reduced to essential institutions.

Representative democracy is becoming obsolete.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

@elonmusk Even if there would be no lawfare, excessive regulations are abusive.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

@JDVance Mr. VicePresident, could you comment on the following:

Will the US prevent WWIII or start it?

1. On Feb 11th, a US envoy goes to Russia.

2. A few days later, on US conservative media is leaked that US intends to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe, including Romania (allegedly based on a earlier plan).

3. On February 15th, EU "leaders" (somehow forgetting to invite Romania and other European Countries) meet for "emergency' talks related to the US-Russia approach to peace talks.

4. A few days later, the President of France, meets with leaders from the countries excluded from the initial meeting (including Romania) to talk about the same issue, and the Interim President of Romania has a one-on-one with him.

5. On February 18th, In Saudi Arabia, Russia Officially demands that the US withdraws its troops from Eastern Europe.

6. Then, Russia officially informs other countries that it requested this of the US, through diplomatic channels.

-- As a side note, in 1944, at the Yalta Conference and later with the (secret) Percentages Agreement — after the stage was set with the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact and the Soviet Union forcibly annexing many territories from Eastern Europe ― the United States and the United Kingdom gave the Soviet Union the “right” to “vassal” countries of Eastern Europe, effectively acquiescing to half a century of communism in Europe.

So in 2025 agreeing to this request would effectively mean reinstating the Russian (formerly Soviet) area of influence on Eastern European countries, threatening their sovereignty.

Leaving Eastern Europe between an increasingly communist-fascist Western Europe and a revisionist, expansionist, imperialist Russia. --

7. Then, the US President has a press conference about the Saudi Arabia talks, but does not mention this.

8. The information available shows that the US has apparently rejected Russia's demand to withdraw its troops from Eastern Europe. For now.

9. Since the war in Ukraine started Russia demanded that NATO returns to the 1997 boarder of NATO - meaning excluding Romanian and other eastern European Countries.

10. Now, they publicly mentioned that they only want NATO to rescind the Bucharest declaration from 2008.

11. Foreign affairs experts conclude that the request to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe will escalate to rescinding the security guarantees for Eastern European members who joined after 1997, essentially leaving them outside the military protection of NATO.

12. Today, Russia issues a declaration that they did not request to go back to the 1997 NATO borders.

So, Mr. Vice President, what will the US do in 2025?

You were right yesterday when you said that solutions previously used by US Presidents are anachronistic.

Indeed, the world is a different place now. That means European Countries will not stand to be treated as second class countries.

What stopped WW III until now was the founding of the UN -- despite obvious issues with such organizations, they still had an important role in ensuring peace --countries had a forum where they could be heard and considered (relatively) equal and the fact that they had the sovereignty to join whatever alliances they deemed necessary and have their own foreign policies.

Denying those rights would effectively start World War III.

Those who believe that US renouncing its role as the leader of free world and influence on Europe will not encourage others to claim that spot, are too optimistic.

So, will the new US administration say no to this demand, or will it agree it leading to WWIII?

Will the new US administration prove fear-mongers right and diminish US' role as the leader of the free world, in a world enslaved by its historic enemies, or will it allow a peaceful and prosperous society, in which America continues to be the leader of the free world, while ensuring prosperity for its people and leading humanity to new heights?

Will the US leave European People between an increasingly communist-fascist Western Europe and an imperialistic expansive revisionist Russia?

Or will it stand for what's right?

With great power comes great responsibility - America first does not mean it shouldn't protect other countries. A true leader of the free world would.

The ultimate question is - Will the US end up starting WWIII instead of preventing it?

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

This has probably not happened in Romania since the communism - however, it looks like psyop. In the era of AI they can be identified from a distance, so it's redundant, unless deliberate to cause outrage. Could be people on the inside to artificially increase support for this candidate. Or they're acting on their own out of sheer incompetence...

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

Again, although unconstitutional, the elections in Romania were not cancelled to prevent him from winning. He did not have the votes, anyway. Influencers should disclose if they are paid to misinform about this... People on X should get their info from non-partisan accounts, otherwise they are just replacing main stream media misinformation with X misinformation...

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

This is a great idea, as long as @elonmusk has accurate info.

99% of people posting about the Romanian elections on X are partisan and misinforming, deliberately or not.

He should be careful about supporting candidates without accurate facts so he could make an informed decision.

He should apply first principles for this - people keep making analogies with the US situation. But the facts are not the same. No candidate is Trump. And the electoral system is different.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

This is exactly why many countries have enshrined in the Constitution that during war the mandate of the president is automatically extended.

People know this when they vote so it is arguably democratic not to have elections during war.

Besides, this country was attacked.

Was not the aggressor so it can't be presumed its President hasn't acted in good faith.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

@elonmusk What color are the Emperor's new clothes?

For being so incredibly intelligent you are weirdly easy to manipulate by those who say what you want to hear...

I thought you encouraged thinking from first principles? Apply this to the situation in Romania, then.

Start getting your info from non-partisan accounts. Read through all the facts instead of getting out of context info from partisan X accounts.

If your input is incorrect, so will your output.

People keep making analogies with the US situation. But the facts are not the same. He is no Trump. And the electoral system in Romania is different than in the US.

Yes, the cancellation was unconstitutional.

Yes, the Court acted tyrannically and this justice's hypocrisy is obvious.

But this does not change the fact that candidate is NOT the "Rightful President" as the account reposted claims.

Nor the fact that the cancellation was NOT to prevent him from winning. The facts are more complex.

If you want to be properly informed about the situation in Romania you can, for example, read what I post - these are verifiable facts, unlike 99% of the accounts on X who prefer partisan opinions.

The facts are:

1. He run as an independent. People mostly vote along party lines and coalitions. Most parties would not support him.

2. Also, he only became the frontrunner in the Romanian Presidential elections because another nationalist candidate was barred from running and her votes went to him in the first round. But he was not vocal about this abuse then because it served his interests...

3. The structure of the Presidential elections in Romania is as follows:

It's mandatory to have two rounds if no candidate has more than 50%in the first round. He had approx 20% and only because another nationalist candidate was barred from running and her votes (approx 5%) went to him in the first round.

Also, it's customary for that fewer people vote in the first round, because the second round is the decisive round.

In the first round votes are atomized - in 2024 were 14 candidates -- and in the second round candidates are supported on party lines and coalitions.

Polls right before the second round showed he would not have won - the other candidate had a voting intention a lot higher than him.

So he probably would not have won.

4. This candidate has breached electoral laws and is deliberately gaslighting the world about who he is and how much support he has from the people in Romania - which is disqualifying.

He said will dismantle the "Soros" establishment -- from which he profited off for decades, but he conveniently forgot to say this -- because this would get you and anti establishment politicians to support him.

This candidate is a man of the system -- former intelligence agent of the communist regime, alleged double agent, political acolyte of the establishment, and seemingly one of the biggest receiver of USAID funds in Romania.

The elections were not cancelled to stop him from becoming President.

5. Publicly, he was virtually unknown before the elections (although he was a political acolyte for decades). It was the attention that he got claiming he was persecuted that made him known worldwide.

During the campaign it was the tiktok videos, from influencers, with million of views that made some Romanian voters aware of him - the same videos he claims has no idea who paid for.

6. He could have been LEGALLY invalidated because he violated campaign finance and transparency laws -- by his own admission -- he claims to have spent zero (literally) money on the campaign which is obviously a logical impossibility.

So, the elections were unconstitutionally cancelled but not to prevent him form winning, rather to give another chance at the Presidency to candidates who did not initially make it to the second round - the PM included.

This does not make the cancellation less abusive, but shows he is not truthful - which is disqualifying.

7. He is only taking advantage of the annulment to claim he is persecuted -- In fairness, it's plausible he is now, but was not when the elections were cancelled -- and to get support from antiestablishment parties, but he is part of the system he claims to fight against.

Romania is in danger not just from the increasingly communist-fascist West, but also from Soviet revisionism.

This candidate will probably not stand for the Romanian people as he claims. Rather, he will only serve the interest of those who financed his campaign - which he refuses to disclose. So he can not be trusted to represent Romanians.

Do NOT support him just because you rightly disagree with the unconstitutional annulment and accounts you follow on X (obviously partisan) claim he is the "rightful President".

The facts are more complex...

This is the full interview with the President of the Court, in English, in case people want to read for themselves

https://t.co/HBgYsWhz8t

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

Because he lied about who financed his campaign.

BREAKING: In Saudi Arabia, on February 18, 2025, Russia asked the US to “retreat” from Eastern Europe and reestablish the soviet area of influence

A President that is subdued to Russia would not object to this. It would put Romania between an increasingly communist-fascist Western Europe and and expansionist revisionist, imperialist Russia.

Fact is this candidate was an intelligence agent in communist Romania, allegedly double agent.

For those who still don't understand: You can't have peace with the threat of violence just like you can't have democracy with the threat of censorship. Since the world would object to violence they are trying to infiltrate favorable politicians.

For details see https://t.co/PT1kOVkZNA

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

BREAKING: In Saudi Arabia, on February 18, 2025, Russia asked the US to “retreat” from Eastern Europe and reestablish the soviet area of influence.

To go back to the 1997 borders of NATO.

Effectively stripping countries that joined after, including Romania, of the military protection of the alliance.

For those who still don't understand: You can't have peace with the threat of violating sovereignty just like you can't have democracy with the threat of censorship.

So, will the US start WWIII or prevent it?

In 1944, at the Yalta Conference and later with the Percentages Agreement — after the stage was set with the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact and the Soviet Union forcibly annexing many territories from Eastern Europe ― the United States and the United Kingdom gave the Soviet Union the “right” to “vassal” countries of Eastern Europe, effectively acquiescing to half a century of communism in Europe.

What will the United States do in 2025?

For now it apparently refused to comply with Russia’s request. But will the new US administration eventually cede control of the free world to Russia?

For those who revere revisionist policies, a warning: the world is a different place now. European Countries will not allow to be treated as vassals.

The first two world wars also started because the Great Powers failed to understand that Imperialism was no longer tolerated. Concessions and power games also led to WW II.

What stopped WW III until now was the founding of the UN, where countries had a forum where they could be heard and considered (relatively) equal and the fact that they had the sovereignty to join whatever alliances they deemed necessary and have their own foreign policies.

Denying those rights, and treating Europe like a serfdom would effectively start World War III.

Those who believe that US renouncing their role as the leader of free world and their influence on Europe will not encourage others to claim that spot, not only don’t understand neither the geo-political landscape of Europe nor human nature, but also don’t know history.

So, will the new US administration have the courage to say no, or will it be manipulated to start WWIII?

Is the US' role as the leader of the free world fading?

Will the US prove fear-mongers right and allow itself to become irrelevant in a world enslaved by its historic enemies, or will it allow a peaceful and prosperous society, in which America continues to be the leader of the free world ensuring prosperity for its people and leading humanity to new heights?

Will it leave European People between an increasingly communist-fascist Western Europe and an imperialistic expansive revisionist Russia?

Or will it stand for what's right?

With great power comes great responsibility - America first does not mean it shouldn't protect other countries. A true leader of the free world would.

The ultimate question is - Will the US end up starting WWIII instead of preventing it?

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

You're getting this wrong, this not about starting wars, but preventing them - about maintaining the status quo in Eastern Europe so that it does not lead to WWIII.

Just like censoring people backfired on the West, so will attacking Eastern European countries' sovereignty backfire on the world.

It was US' leadership that prevented interferences until now, so if US allows Russia to reestablish areas on influence on Europe it will put humanity in danger because Eastern European countries will no longer allow to be treated as second class countries.

Beside, since the fall of communism there were only two wars in Europe that the US has been involved in, and it was the US that played a big part in starting both...

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

@elonmusk @CommunityNotes People on X have been saying this for a while, perhaps if the algorithm would prioritize non-partisan accounts, you would be better informed...

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

BREAKING: In Saudi Arabia, on February 18, 2025, Russia asked the US to “retreat” from Eastern Europe and reestablish the soviet area of influence.

The US VP is right, the world is a different place now, which also means that Eastern European Countries will no longer allow anyone to treat them as vassals.

You can't have peace with the threat of violating sovereignty just like you can't have democracy with the threat of censorship.

For now US apparently refused to comply with Russia’s request, but will it eventually cede control of the free world to Russia?

For details, see https://t.co/PT1kOVkZNA

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

BREAKING: In Saudi Arabia, on February 18, 2025, Russia asked the US to “retreat” from Eastern Europe and reestablish the soviet area of influence.

To go back to the 1997 borders of NATO.

Effectively stripping countries that joined after, including Romania, of the military protection of the alliance.

For those who still don't understand: You can't have peace with the threat of violating sovereignty just like you can't have democracy with the threat of censorship.

So, will the US start WWIII or prevent it?

In 1944, at the Yalta Conference and later with the Percentages Agreement — after the stage was set with the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact and the Soviet Union forcibly annexing many territories from Eastern Europe ― the United States and the United Kingdom gave the Soviet Union the “right” to “vassal” countries of Eastern Europe, effectively acquiescing to half a century of communism in Europe.

What will the United States do in 2025?

For now it apparently refused to comply with Russia’s request. But will the new US administration eventually cede control of the free world to Russia?

For those who revere revisionist policies, a warning: the world is a different place now. European Countries will not allow to be treated as vassals.

The first two world wars also started because the Great Powers failed to understand that Imperialism was no longer tolerated. Concessions and power games also led to WW II.

What stopped WW III until now was the founding of the UN, where countries had a forum where they could be heard and considered (relatively) equal and the fact that they had the sovereignty to join whatever alliances they deemed necessary and have their own foreign policies.

Denying those rights, and treating Europe like a serfdom would effectively start World War III.

Those who believe that US renouncing their role as the leader of free world and their influence on Europe will not encourage others to claim that spot, not only don’t understand neither the geo-political landscape of Europe nor human nature, but also don’t know history.

So, will the new US administration have the courage to say no, or will it be manipulated to start WWIII?

Is the US' role as the leader of the free world fading?

Will the US prove fear-mongers right and allow itself to become irrelevant in a world enslaved by its historic enemies, or will it allow a peaceful and prosperous society, in which America continues to be the leader of the free world ensuring prosperity for its people and leading humanity to new heights?

Will it leave European People between an increasingly communist-fascist Western Europe and an imperialistic expansive revisionist Russia?

Or will it stand for what's right?

With great power comes great responsibility - America first does not mean it shouldn't protect other countries. A true leader of the free world would.

The ultimate question is - Will the US end up starting WWIII instead of preventing it?

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

Agree that the US should not fund all wars.

But people conveniently forget that it was US that encouraged this for years, so it has a responsibility to end it while respecting Eastern Europe's sovereignty.

Also, as the leader of the free world, US should protect democracy from all threats, including Soviet revisionism not just Western censorship - with great power comes great responsibility.

Btw, the majority of US tax money are stolen by US politicians, bureaucrats and their acolytes, not going to other countries...

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

No, it is not speculation when the US President has a press conference after the Saudi Arabia talks reiterating Russian points of disinformation, but does not say a word about this request.

And don't make this into a globalist issue because you're wrong - just because there is globalist disinformation does not mean there is no Russian disinformation.

Also, your dismissiveness will not make you right -- I happen to know a lot more about international law and foreign politics than you (based on your account) so if anyone should be dismissive is me of you, but I am not and I explain so you can understand...

The fact is - either the US is the leader of the free world, in which case it will protect democracy in Europe, or it is not, in which case it will agree to Russia's request to reestablish soviet influence on Eastern Europe.

[Ingrid Müller @IngridAMueller]

Absolutely agree that Europe should be more involved in its own defense, financially and military. But the US, as the leader of the free world, should not allow Russia's soviet revisionism to re-enslave Eastern Europe. Agreeing to reestablishing such areas of influence on Europe would be strategically wrong. Not just for Europe but for the world as the countries will not stand for their sovereignty to be violated and it will cause WWIII with the nuclear threat to destroy humanity.