@CraigDemel (also @0xseraphim)

"this" refers to "the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent". I have not seen any analysis at all, only an allegation.

For what it's worth, here's my reasoning for starting this market in the first place. It's a duck test analysis (if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck). My standard candle in the vatnik universe is Tim Pool, who confessed to taking money from Russia to the tune of $100,000 per week via Tenet. He denies having done so knowingly, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this market. Whether knowingly or not, he worked for Russia, which gives us a duck to compare to. Now let's see how Tulsi Gabbard quacks:

-------------------------------- Comparison --------------------------------

Russia/Putin responsibility: Gabbard has condemned Putin’s invasion and said Russian forces should leave Ukraine, but she also argued the war could have been avoided if Biden/NATO had guaranteed that Ukraine would not join NATO. That is mostly aligned with post-Tenet Pool’s anti-Ukraine framing, but not fully.

NATO/Ukraine membership causation: Gabbard treated NATO expansion and Ukraine’s possible NATO alignment as central. It aligns well with post-Tenet Pool’s anti-interventionist stance, but with Pool going even further.

U.S./Western elites or MIC prolonged the war: Gabbard repeatedly framed the conflict through U.S. warmongers, NATO, sanctions, and the military-industrial complex. Virtually indistinguishable from post-Tenet Pool's stance.

End or sharply reduce U.S. aid: Gabbard criticized "blank-check" Ukraine aid and corruption. Virtually indistinguishable from post-Tenet Pool's position.

Ukraine democracy / Zelensky legitimacy critique: Gabbard explicitly said Ukraine is not actually a democracy and cited Zelensky’s restrictions on media, parties, churches, and elections. Hard to see the difference from post-Tenet Pool's statements.

Ukraine as U.S. enemy or threat: This is the only major difference I could find. Pool’s later "Ukraine is the enemy" framing is much more extreme. Gabbard criticized Ukraine’s government and U.S. policy, but she did not make the same "Ukraine is America's enemy" claim.

Negotiations / neutral Ukraine / off-ramp: No difference; both favored diplomacy and an off-ramp.

Nuclear war / WWIII escalation risk: Gabbard repeatedly framed U.S. Ukraine policy as risking nuclear war or World War III, the same as post-Tenet Pool.

Sanctions / economic cost to Americans: Gabbard maintained that sanctions do not work and hurt Americans, making the exact same point as Pool.

Ukraine biolabs / U.S.-funded labs: Both amplified the biolabs issue in the exact same way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tulsi Gabbard walks and quacks like a very typical Kremlin duck. She's more similar to post-Tenet Pool than even pre-Tenet Pool himself. The only issue on which they clearly have different stated opinions is whether Ukraine is the enemy, a claim that Pool first made only after he started receiving Russian money via Tenet. It's a rather atypical claim for known vatniks because it's clearly untrue and thus politically very costly. Orbán just got swept out of power in a landslide because of it, so most vatniks won't go there.

Now you could try making the claim that Tulsi Gabbard is just a typical Republican (i.e. the duck test is not specific enough), but that's not true for multiple reasons:

1. Probably surprising for people new to vatnik ecosystems, Jill Stein has almost the same level of alignment with post-Tenet Pool as Gabbard. This is not an anomaly; Putin always tries to buy out the far left in every country as well.

2. Non-MAGA Republicans essentially have zero alignment with post-Tenet Tim Pool (e.g. Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Liz Cheney, Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Jeb Bush).

3. Even MAGA Republicans are split on the issue, with very few having the same level of alignment with post-Tenet Tim Pool. For example, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have very little overlap.

4. There are only a select few with the same level of alignment as Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein: Paul Gosar (the only one with even more overlap than Gabbard), Marjorie Taylor Greene (before she resigned), Vivek Ramaswamy, Thomas Massie, JD Vance, Matt Gaetz, and perhaps Trump himself and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. That's it. I can't find anyone else who would pass the duck test.

@ChaosIsALadder I wouldn't make the claim that she's a Republican. For one thing, she's a Democrat. I think the difference between her and most Ds and Rs is that she's generally anti-war and has been in a number of different cases. Maybe she has just taken less money from pro-war PACs.

But, you know, go try to find some tenet link to her and win some money! I will stand pat.

@CraigDemel My analysis doesn't care whether she's a Democrat or a Republican, which is why it also singles out Jill Stein, along with a few other (mostly MAGA-aligned) Republicans. It also doesn't care whether she has links to Tenet (which she likely doesn't). The analysis merely establishes Tulsi Gabbard as someone who probably works for Russia because she talks in a manner almost indistinguishable from someone who has been proven to work for Russia. I agree that it is uncertain whether we're ever going to see hard evidence for that, which is why I created this market.

@ChaosIsALadder "Ukraine is the enemy" (Pool) vs "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is indefensible" (Gabbard). I can distinguish between those stances!

@CraigDemel The analysis explains why this difference is not relevant. It's simply such a politically costly statement to make that most vatniks don't, and the ones that do tend to lose badly. Which is why it shouldn't be part of the standard duck test.

@ChaosIsALadder How would your analysis be able to distinguish between anti-war and pro-Russia? It doesn't seem to give any weight to condemnation of Russia, for example.

@CraigDemel Let me start with your last statement before answering your question. The duck test does give some weight to the presence of a condemnation, but not decisive weight, because it's not a good predictor of whether someone is taking money from Russia. Manafort, Gerhard Schröder (former Chancellor of Germany), and Marine Le Pen (former leader of the far-right in France) have all condemned Russia despite taking money from Russia. You're correct, however, in assessing that the absence of a condemnation is highly suspicious even in isolation, though it does correlate highly with all other parts of the test. In any case, it's reasonable to assume that Russia's very well-funded worldwide influence operation is acting in a manner maximally conducive to its overall goals. That means that it's clearly allowing some of its paid mouthpieces to deviate from the party line, e.g. on the matter of allowing condemnations of Russia's invasion (provided they're hollowed out by claiming it's also the West's and Ukraine's fault), which makes the other narratives more believable and easier to spread.

As for distinguishing between anti-war and pro-Russia: Being (naively) anti-war is a confounding factor, but you don't pass the duck test by just being anti-war. Pool's post-Tenet stance is a weird, Russian-flavored, inconsistent collage of anti-war, non-interventionism, anti-Ukraine, and anti-US ideology. You have to buy into most of it to pass the test, which is why so few US politicians do. Here's more detail on what it actually takes to pass the duck test:

* Anti-war (U.S./Western elites or the MIC prolonged the war, negotiations / off-ramp, nuclear war / WWIII escalation risk): These are probably the most believable and popular positions, even though they are deeply idiotic. The first one is probably true in a shallow sense, but the rest are just plain stupid. You can only negotiate with a party that is willing to negotiate, and Putin has shown zero signs of a desire to negotiate in good faith. He also doesn't really need an off-ramp because of his almost complete control of the Russian information space, meaning he can claim victory at any time. Giving in to (nuclear) blackmail and posturing makes nuclear war and WWIII escalation more, not less, likely in the long-term equilibrium.

* Non-interventionism (end U.S. aid, sanctions): Still somehow popular, though not nearly as much as the plain anti-war rhetoric. This is partly the case because being anti-war should increase the likelihood of being pro-sanctions and pro-(non-lethal) aid. But it's also a deeply stupid position. The last time we had non-interventionists run the show in the US, we got WW2 as one of the results. If you don't exercise your power, someone else will eventually fill the vacuum left by your inaction.

* Anti-Ukraine (Ukraine is not a democracy, Zelensky is not a legitimate president, aid to Ukraine just feeds corruption): These positions do not follow naturally from anti-war / non-interventionism. They are also not based on reality. Ukraine is a democracy under martial law because of Russia's invasion, with Zelensky as its legitimate and very popular president. It's true that Ukraine does have problems with corruption, like most other countries in the Eastern Bloc, but the aid from the US/EU is heavily monitored, with no signs of it feeding corruption. On the contrary, Ukraine has improved slowly but steadily over the last years.

* Anti-US (the biolab conspiracy theory): This one has been thoroughly debunked and is just ridiculous. It's only very few elected Republicans and Tulsi Gabbard who amplify it, because it's fundamentally an anti-American position. If anything, one can argue it's just as indicative of working for Russia as not being able to condemn the invasion.

@ChaosIsALadder Leaving aside your bold use of ad hominae, there are a number of ongoing conflicts where the US has no interest and decides not to waste money, lives, and other resources by intervening. Complaints about "power vacuums" in these places are minimal. The default pro-US position therefore is to not intervene.

Is your position that Ukraine is different, because Russia would have a slightly larger land blob?

@CraigDemel No, not because of its size, though Ukraine is actually the largest country in Europe by area. But Ukraine is unique for many reasons that are quite relevant to the US. The most important one is probably the deal we made with Ukraine in 1994. They handed over 1,700 nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances (UNTC ) from us. I hope I don't have to explain why not upholding our end of the bargain is already very bad, but unfortunately it's even worse than that. No country will ever again hand over its nuclear weapons after seeing what happened to Ukraine, and every country on Earth is thinking very seriously about acquiring them. In fact, this is probably already biting Trump right in the ass with Iran. They'd rather risk dying than give up their plans to build a nuclear bomb.

In general, superpowers tend to foster a certain kind of environment after reaching a sufficient scale. The Romans had the Pax Romana, Britain had the Pax Britannica, and we created what outsiders perceive as the Pax Americana. This didn't happen out of the kindness of our hearts, but because it benefits us. We fostered a rules-based international order and strongly preferred and defended democracies within this order because they tend to make excellent trade partners (77% of our trade volume) and allies. Ukraine is also quite unique because letting it fall would mark the first time since World War II that we have let a democracy get swallowed up and the rules-based international order fail. If Trump hasn't ended it already, it would clearly be the end of the Pax Americana.

Being a hegemonic power is a heavy cross to bear, and you could argue that it's not worth it. But for past superpowers, giving it up preceded their decline and eventual collapse. The consequences are not immediate. It's just that the surrounding environment tends to gradually become more hostile, especially when you have opposing powers also trying to foster an environment that suits them. This is what Russia has been covertly doing for more than two decades. For them, trade is secondary, and what really matters is power and control. It has been exclusively attacking democracies because it perceives them as a threat. Ukraine didn't get attacked because Putin needed more land, but because it was on its way to becoming the first large Russian-speaking country to emerge as a shining beacon of democracy. Putin is certainly not going to stop when he gets another piece of Ukraine. He needs Ukraine to fail, because if it succeeds, it will show Russians that there's an alternative to his reign of fear. That is exactly the reason we should support Ukraine. They have the potential to eliminate the world's biggest troublemaker for us at a fraction of the cost of our expensive and pointless endeavours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least in my theory of (non-)interventionism, we need to defend the rules-based international order even at very high cost to ourselves. If we don't, it's not unlikely that we will end up alone and failing in a hostile world full of autocracies. That doesn't mean, however, that we should go on and squander resources attacking random countries, but rather invest in deterrence and act swiftly when necessary. Ideally, we shouldn't have to do anything because everyone would be certain to get punished if they tried to break the rules, but deterrence is a resource that must be built over time. We failed when we let Putin take Crimea with little consequence. Back then, it was easy to argue that we didn't have any interest in wasting money, lives, and other resources by intervening. It was just a small piece of Ukrainian land far away that we cared little about, so why should we have intervened? This line of thinking ended up causing immense costs later on, with the full-scale war in Ukraine triggering the worst inflation in 40 years. This is what filling a power vacuum looks like, and there's been a ton of whining. We could at least have prevented the later invasion for peanuts through early intervention. If we let Ukraine fall now, the costs are only going to get much higher because Russia is going to use Ukraine's soldiers and know-how to start an even larger war in Europe (Ukrainians nowadays routinely win against NATO units; see, e.g., Ukraine's small drone teams keep beating NATO units in exercises, and neither side is surprised ). I guess we could just keep burying our heads in the sand, but at some point the war is pretty likely to hit our economy directly or even land on our doorstep

At this point, you might perhaps agree that it's probably not in our interest for Ukraine to fall, but think it's still just the Europeans' responsibility to take care of the problem in their backyard. That's defensible, but probably wrong. Europe did help us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they don't take it lightly when Trump berates them about Ukraine instead of helping. This is probably one of the main reasons why they're only doing the absolute minimum to help Trump with his Iran mess. Trump is also too ignorant to know the reason why we really let the Europeans stay in NATO on the cheap. It has always been Germany. The arrangement after World War II was that we were going to take care of their security, and in exchange they were going to keep their military down. That is changing drastically now, and I've got a feeling we are going to come to regret it. And even if everything goes well, not giving Ukraine any aid means we have nothing to say. If, for example, instead of attacking oil refining (which helps us because it forces Russia to export more crude oil), Ukraine decides to attack oil extraction, there's not that much we can do. Trump is just finding out the hard way that he can't force a deal on Zelensky if he doesn't pay for a seat at the table. Lastly, the Europeans being directly involved in the war means they are gaining a lot of experience that we are increasingly missing out on. That experience alone is probably worth more than all the mainly obsolete weapons Biden delivered to Ukraine.

@ChaosIsALadder I agree that the US should keep to its agreements. But your case against Gabbard regarding intervention is, "Gabbard criticized "blank-check" Ukraine aid and corruption." Does this mean you would consider anything less than allocating infinity money and tolerating corruption to be a sign of Russian support?

I will note that Zelensky has not asked for infinite aid, and has asked multiple ministers to resign over corruption: https://archive.ph/uqTzc. Would he also fail your test here?

@CraigDemel

I agree that the US should keep to its agreements.

Then how about doing that instead of searching for excuses not to?

But your case against Gabbard regarding intervention is, "Gabbard criticized "blank-check" Ukraine aid and corruption."

First of all, that's not what part 4 (out of 10) of the duck test asks. Rather, it asks whether someone advocates ending or sharply reducing aid to Ukraine solely based on "blank-check" and corruption slogans, which is a weak but clear sign of Russian support. This is why:

blank-check: Taken literally, it's a bold-faced lie because all aid provided to Ukraine was limited and ultimately appropriated by Congress (yes, Republicans too). But it's also a lie if one instead understands "blank-check" as criticizing limited oversight. By early 2025, there were 64 planned and ongoing audits and reviews of U.S. assistance to Ukraine, plus 39 accountability provisions passed into law through Congress (again bipartisan).

corruption: Aid to Ukraine, both from the US and the EU, was and continues to be strictly monitored, with no incidents linked to it. And if Gabbard was concerned about corruption in general, she would have complained about the much greater corruption in Russia. Did you ever hear that from her? Yeah, me neither. Instead, she advocated removing sanctions, hence doing more business with Russia. She clearly doesn't have much of a problem with corruption except exclusively when talking about Ukraine.

It is a red flag when you criticize aid to an invaded country solely based on lies and hypocrisy. But what really gives it away is that, if Gabbard's concerns were genuine, she'd propose concrete steps to remedy the situation. This is what the EU is doing, by the way. They are tying aid to anti-corruption reforms, and it's working. Ukraine by now has stricter anti-corruption laws than most Western countries, including the US.

Does this mean you would consider anything less than allocating infinity money and tolerating corruption to be a sign of Russian support?

I'm all for constructive corruption intolerance (like arresting corrupt officials, stronger anti-corruption agencies and laws), and spending smart, preferably nothing, or even better, making a profit. Lying, hypocritical corruption intolerance directed only at Ukraine and the inexplicable ongoing failure to understand the cost of inaction are signs of support for Russia, though, as I mentioned multiple times by now, not decisive ones. It's buying the entire, much larger package that gets you to pass the duck test.

I will note that Zelensky has not asked for infinite aid, and has asked multiple ministers to resign over corruption: https://archive.ph/uqTzc. Would he also fail your test here?

If you apply the duck test to Zelensky the same way we did for Gabbard, he scores 0 points out of 10. He doesn't even score the point on corruption and blank checks because he didn't argue for reduced aid based on the ongoing fight against corruption, and he most certainly wouldn't oppose blank checks to fight against Russia. Not asking is not the same as opposing.

Laura Loomer is now accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent 🤣

Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) on X

shit, I think she's right

@0xseraphim from Loomer:

"Slide 4 contains the internal work product of an American corporation (Black and Veatch) that worked with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in Ukraine. The Russian Government claims to have captured these documents during their invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Government then widely publicized these products in their own official reports in 2022."

So Loomer is trying to paint American intelligence as Russian intelligence, just because Russians publicized it?

@CraigDemel I do not know what Loomer is trying to achieve here. I agree with the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent. Gabbard’s release misleadingly repackages publicly known U.S.-Ukraine CTR/BTRP biosecurity work in a way that amplifies a Russian disinformation narrative.

Specifically in the context of the above screenshot, I agree that the U.S.-Ukraine biological cooperation is "Cooperative Threat Reduction" (as in, securing dangerous pathogen collections, improving biosafety, and supporting disease surveillance), and not a U.S.-Ukrainian bioweapons program as pushed by Russian disinformation efforts.

I also agree with Loomer when she points out that Gabbard’s ODNI release is misleadingly framed. The press release talks about “biolabs,” alleged coverups, dangerous pathogens, and “in some cases” gain-of-function research, but the released slides do not establish these things took place in Ukraine at all. The release’s framing is intentionally designed to blur the distinction between ordinary "dangerous pathogen" public health/biosecurity work and biological weapons work. She can't get around the fact that there is no evidence that Ukraine’s cooperative program with the U.S. was involved in biological weapons or gain-of-function research.

The effect of the release is to amplify a Russian narrative. Russia has already cited the declassified materials as support for its allegations. Gabbard's goal is to provide Russia a manufactured excuse.

@CraigDemel @0xseraphim Loomer's tweets are interesting, but they're not directly relevant to this market. Only credible evidence of an actual working relationship (e.g. evidence of handling, compensation, tasking, or alternatively a confession) counts, and I've seen zero such evidence so far. That being said, the slides published by Tulsi Gabbard are highly suspicious.

1st slide: Is actually saying the opposite of what Gabbard claims it says.
2nd slide: Is full of errors in a way that makes it impossible to take it seriously (e.g. Ukraine's capital city, Kyiv, misplaced way down in the south of the country).
3rd slide: Public American contractor information and also Russian propaganda (both can be true at the same time).
4th slide: Same as the 3rd, with the difference that this was used by the Russians to accuse the US and Ukraine of military biological activities at the UN Security Council (https://www.the-trench.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/UNSC-20221024-Russia-letter-Article-VI-Documentation.pdf, page 83). The Security Council did not buy it and almost unanimously rejected this "evidence".

Gabbard did not present any new information and is just amplifying the Russian framing*, which is consistent with her working for Russia. It seems unlikely that she'd take a foreseeable political hit (also from Laura Loomer) for no compensation at all. Without evidence however, the possibility remains that e.g. she sincerely believes all of this and / or that she did not foresee or miscalculated the obvious backlash.

----

* Framing is independent of the original source of information, which happens to be American in this case. Propaganda doesn't have to invent new information all the time. On the contrary, the best lies are wrapped around a core of truth.

@0xseraphim Is there any actual analysis for this? Hillary Clinton made a claim about Russian influence at one point, after Gabbard accused her of being pro-war a few times. But AFAICT that's it.

@CraigDemel what do you consider to be "actual analysis"? What "this" are you referring to?

@0xseraphim "this" refers to "the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent". I have not seen any analysis at all, only an allegation.

@CraigDemel you are asking "Is there any actual analysis for the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?" ?

I'm not sure how to help you there unfortunately. Perhaps you want to define, in your view, where the line is drawn between allegations and analysis? Then you could describe what an "actual analysis" would possibly look like?

@0xseraphim No, I'm asking for the analysis to which you were referring.

@CraigDemel you're going to need to be a bit clearer there because this conversation appears to be going in circles

@0xseraphim You said above, "I agree with the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent." But it appears no such analysis has been performed.

@CraigDemel ah I see what's going on. You may have an unconventional definition of the word analysis. Here is Wikipedia's definition:

@0xseraphim My understanding is conventional. I have seen no evidence, thought, or breaking down into parts. Only the repetition of a D party base meme.

@CraigDemel then no matter what explanation or analysis you're given, if you see it through that framing then your conditioning will move you to say that it's not an "actual analysis". In light of this breakthrough, I have lost interest in this conversation 😂

@0xseraphim So far I have seen zero analysis from you. "Tulsi is likely a Russian agent because it fits pattern X" would be an example of analysis. "I believe everything said by my tribe" is not.

I will certainly understand you if you do not wish to continue the conversation at this point.

@CraigDemel buddy you can't even read

@0xseraphim Thank you for finally providing the substance of your analysis. So to steelman, you think her releasing correct information which "serves a Russian disinformation narrative" is most likely to be because she is a Russian agent?

@CraigDemel you are subconsciously aware of the limitations of your worldview and you are projecting this onto the person on the other side of the conversation. I am not a participant in your weird little Republican/Democrat culture war nonsense. There is no value in continuing this discussion since you don't have the ability to think about reality outside of this framing. There is no point discussing explanations with you, because your fabricated reality would make you just blank the whole thing out.

@0xseraphim to what part of my steel man are you objecting?

@CraigDemel I'm objecting to you as a person

@0xseraphim Thanks, this will help a lot of people in determining how much weight to give to your statements.

@CraigDemel good thing this is a prediction market then, eh?