Biden waging a proxy war against Russia,

anatta

100% recycled karma
The U.S. government has consistently and aggressively escalated its participation in this war with barely any questioning let alone opposition. U.S. officials are boastfully leading the effort to collapse the Russian economy.
Along with its NATO allies, the U.S. has flooded Ukraine with billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry, with at least some of those arms ending up in the hands of actual neo-Nazi battalions integrated into the Ukrainian government and military.
It is providing surveillance technology in the form of drones and its own intelligence to enable Ukrainian targeting of Russian forces.
President Biden threatened Russia with a response “in kind” if Russia were to use chemical weapons. Meanwhile, reports The New York Times, “C.I.A. officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units."

The U.S. is, by definition, waging a proxy war against Russia, using Ukrainians as their instrument, with the goal of not ending the war but prolonging it. So obvious is this fact about U.S. objectives that even The New York Times last Sunday explicitly reported that the the Biden administration “seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire” (albeit with care not to escalate into a nuclear exchange).
Indeed, even “some American officials assert that as a matter of international law, the provision of weaponry and intelligence to the Ukrainian Army has made the United States a cobelligerent,” though this is “an argument that some legal experts dispute.” Surveying all this evidence as well as discussions with his own U.S. and British sources, Niall Ferguson, writing in Bloomberg, proclaimed: “I conclude that the U.S. intends to keep this war going.” UK officials similarly told him that “the U.K.’s No. 1 option is for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin.”

In sum, the Biden administration is doing exactly that which former President Obama warned in 2016 should never be done: risking war between the world's two largest nuclear powers over Ukraine.
Yet if any pathology defines the last five years of U.S. mainstream discourse, it is that any claim that undercuts the interests of U.S. liberal elites — no matter how true — is dismissed as "Russian disinformation.”

As we witnessed most vividly in the run-up to the 2020 election — when that label was unquestioningly yet falsely applied by the union of the CIA, corporate media and Big Tech to the laptop archive revealing Joe Biden's political and financial activities in Ukraine and China — any facts which establishment power centers want to demonize or suppress are reflexively labelled “Russian disinformation.” Hence, the DNC propaganda arm Media Matters now lists as “pro-Russian propaganda” the indisputable fact that the U.S. is not defending Ukraine but rather exploiting and sacrificing it to fight a proxy war with Moscow. The more true a claim is, the more likely it is to receive this designation in U.S. establishment discourse.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/bidens-reckless-words-underscore?s=r
 
I have to ask myself if Biden would be obsessing about Russia as much as he is?
Were the economy not falling apart and his poll numbers not falling (before the Ukrainian invasion)?

And I am STRONGLY forced to conclude - 'no'.





As per usual, another scummy, pathetic loser of a human being (a US federal politician - on EITHER side) is lying and taking advantage of a terrible incident to gain political traction.
 
This cultivation of extreme anti-Russian animus in Washington has been made even more dangerous by the virtual prohibition on dialogue with Russian officials, which during Russiagate was deemed inherently suspect if not criminal.

And all of those preexisting dangers are, in turn, severely exacerbated by an American president who so often is too age-addled to speak clearly or predictably. That condition is inherently dangerous, made all the more so by the fact that it leaves him vulnerable to manipulation by the Democratic Party's national security advisers who will never forget 2016 and seem more intent than ever on finally attaining vengeance against Putin, no matter the risks. Speaking to U.S. troops in Poland on Friday, a visibly exhausted and rambling President Biden — after extensive travel, time-zone hopping, protracted meetings and speeches — appeared to tell U.S. troops that they were on their way to see first-hand the resistance of Ukrainians, meaning they were headed into Ukraine:

It seems clear that this was not some planned decision to have the U.S. president casually announce his intention to send U.S. troops to fight Russians in Ukraine. This was, instead, an old man, more tired, unpredictable and incoherent than usual due to intense overseas travel, accidentally mumbling out various phrases that could be and almost certainly were highly alarming to Moscow and other countries.

That Biden's "gaffe” about U.S. troops headed into Ukraine could generate exactly this sort of "misperception” seems self-evident. So do the grave dangers from Biden's sudden yet emphatic declaration on Saturday that Putin "cannot remain in power” — the classic language of declared U.S. policy of regime change:

Ferguson's reporting in Bloomberg last week:

Reading this carefully, I conclude that the U.S. intends to keep this war going….I have evidence from other sources to corroborate this. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official was heard to say at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime"…..I gather that senior British figures are talking in similar terms. There is a belief that “the U.K.’s No. 1 option is for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin.” Again and again, I hear such language. It helps explain, among other things, the lack of any diplomatic effort by the U.S. to secure a cease-fire. It also explains the readiness of President Joe Biden to call Putin a war criminal.

Whether deliberate or unintentional, these escalatory statements — particularly when combined with the U.S.’s escalatory actions — are dangerous beyond what can be described. As an Australian news outlet reported on Sunday, “Russia has launched a missile strike near Poland in what appears to be a deadly warning to the United States.” The accompanying video (see lead photo above) shows at least three long-range cruise missiles, launched from a Russian submarine in the Black Sea, precisely striking targets in western Ukraine, near to where Biden was in Poland. That missile launch, the outlet reasonably concluded, “appears to be a deadly warning to the United States.”

A Russian president who, validly or not, feels threatened by NATO expansion in the region and driven by questions of his legacy, on the other side of a U.S. president with a long record of hawkishness and war fever which is now hobbled by the carelessness and infirmities of old age, is a remarkably volatile combination. As former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis put it on Saturday: “A U.S. President who, during an atrocious war, does not mean what he says on matters of War and Peace, and must be corrected by his hyperventilating staff, is a clear and present danger to all.”
 
Why did the U.S. not do more to try to diplomatically avert this horrific war, instead seemingly opting for the opposite: namely, discouraging Ukrainian President Zelensky from pursuing such talks on the alleged grounds of futility and rewarding Russian aggression, and not even exploring whether a vow of non-NATO-membership for Ukraine would suffice? How does growing U.S. involvement in this war benefit the people of the United States, particularly as they were already — before this war — weighed down by the dual burdens of pandemic-based economic depravations and rapidly escalating inflation?

These are precisely the questions that a healthy nation discusses and examines before jumping head-first into a major war. But these were precisely the questions declared to be unpatriotic, proof of one's status as a traitor or pro-Russia propagandist, as the hallmark of being pro-Putin. These are the standard tactics used to squash dissent or questioning when war breaks out. That neocons, who perfected these smear tactics, are back in the saddle as discourse and policy leaders — due to their six-year project of ingratiating themselves back into American liberalism with performative anti-Trump agitprop — makes it inevitable that such sleazy attacks will prevail.

As a result, the U.S. now finds itself more deeply enmeshed than ever in the most dangerous war it has fought in years if not decades.
 
I have to ask myself if Biden would be obsessing about Russia as much as he is?
Were the economy not falling apart and his poll numbers not falling (before the Ukrainian invasion)?

And I am STRONGLY forced to conclude - 'no'.





As per usual, another scummy, pathetic loser of a human being (a US federal politician - on EITHER side) is lying and taking advantage of a terrible incident to gain political traction.
It's deeper then that. Biden has the old interventionist gang back together. Nuland and Susan Rice
These 2 undermined the Obama Russian reset before under Biden and they want to use Uk to remove Putin
Biden blurts it out.
 
It's deeper then that. Biden has the old interventionist gang back together. Nuland and Susan Rice
These 2 undermined the Obama Russian reset before under Biden and they want to use Uk to remove Putin
Biden blurts it out.

With respect, EVERY POTUS is interventionist.

And before you say Trump wasn't?
He DEFINITELY was.

He promised to get out of Afghanistan, NATO and Syria.
He failed at all three.
He even put more troops in Afghanistan.
He got conned by a false flag, gas bombing to missile attack Syria.
Plus he stole Syrian oil - so American troops are still there.
Plus he tariffed the shit out of many things - which did NO good for the economy or the trade deficit.
Interventionism is not just military - economic as well.

EVERY, SINGLE POTUS in modern US history was/is interventionist....NO exceptions.

Only a Ron Paul - if he had been POTUS or someone like him - would have been non-interventionalist.
 
With respect, EVERY POTUS is interventionist.



He promised to get out of Afghanistan, NATO and Syria.
Trump never promised to get out of NATO.. He tried to get out of Syria and the warhawks were so vitriolic and his presidency so damaged by Russian colussion he couldn't
He tried to talk to Putin - and was accused of being Putin's puppet.
If we had some diplomacy with Putin since 2014, we might have taken his redline as negotiable
and not had Putin start the war

He even put more troops in Afghanistan.
temporarily, but also got us down from 11k to 2.5k
He got conned by a false flag, gas bombing to missile attack Syria.
maybe. but it was a redline. Obama said the same and didn't follow thru
Plus he stole Syrian oil - so American troops are still there.
WTF?
Plus he tariffed the shit out of many things - which did NO good for the economy or the trade deficit.
tariffs got Mexico to institute REMAIN and got China to negotiate Phase 1
Interventionism is not just military - economic as well.
soft power is acceptable and viable and China uses it much better then we do
 
Trump never promised to get out of NATO.. He tried to get out of Syria and the warhawks were so vitriolic and his presidency so damaged by Russian colussion he couldn't
He tried to talk to Putin - and was accused of being Putin's puppet.
If we had some diplomacy with Putin since 2014, we might have taken his redline as negotiable
and not had Putin start the war
True - my mistake.
But he said he did not like NATO and that he would consider getting out if it did not change.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/
It did not change much and he did not get out.
And I don't much care what pressure, people put on him.
He is the POTUS - his word goes.
He should have told them to stuff it and pulled out anyway.
POTUS's need to be STRONG.

temporarily, but also got us down from 11k to 2.5k
maybe. but it was a redline. Obama said the same and didn't follow thru
True, but the point is he had 4 years to pull out - and he didn't.
And I do not care what Obama did..I despise ALL POTUS's.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/7/20953612/trump-syria-oil-kurds-isis

And twice he promised to pull ALL troops out of Syria...they are still there.

tariffs got Mexico to institute REMAIN and got China to negotiate Phase 1
soft power is acceptable and viable and China uses it much better then we do

No offense, but I don't care about 'deals' - with enough fine print to sink a ship.
I care about hard numbers like trade deficits and GDP growth.

The trade deficit got worse under Trump.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/trade-balance-deficit
Largely due to his tariffs.
Which even his OWN, well-respected, economic advisor was against.
https://learngerman.dw.com/en/donal...ry-cohn-quits-amid-tariffs-dispute/a-42854062

So, his tariffs did not help the US economy.

And even though Trump - rightly - knocked the Fed on the campaign trail for meddling in the economy.
He did NOTHING about it once in office.
https://www.aol.com/article/2015/11...-of-keeping-rates-low-to-help-obama/21258301/
He rightly called the unemployment rate a 'hoax' on the campaign trail.
But embraced it the month after he took office.

Trump went back on JUST as many promises as all the other useless pieces of shit who were POTUS's.

I believe that Putin would not have attacked when Trump was in office as Trump was a friend Putin needed badly.
But even if Trump had two terms, he would be gone by January 2025 - and Putin could just attack then.

Trump said some great things on the campaign trail (the Fed, U-3, foreign policy, Russia, etc.).
But he proved to be weak...too easily letting others talk him out of things.
 
Back
Top