If you thought that the neocon-controlled US plan to isolate and destroy Russia couldn’t get any worse, you were wrong. In a speech in Poland, brain-dead Biden said that Putin could not stay in power. This was not a slip. As Dr. Ron Paul points out with characteristic insight:
Previewing President Biden’s trip to Europe last week, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that, ‘the president is traveling to Europe to make sure we stay united.’
That sure didn’t go as planned. This may have been the most disastrous – and dangerous – Presidential overseas trip ever.
The US and its NATO allies have repeatedly proclaimed that ‘protecting Ukraine’s democracy’ has never been about threatening Russia. Holding out NATO membership and sending billions of dollars in military equipment to Ukraine, starting under Trump, was not threatening Russia. CIA training camps in eastern Ukraine, where paramilitaries were trained on US weapons systems, was not about threatening Russia.
But at every stop, President Biden seemed to undermine the narrative his own Administration had carefully crafted. First up, warning that Russia might use chemical weapons in Ukraine, Biden promised it would ‘trigger a response in kind,’ meaning the US would use chemical weapons as well. That would be a serious war crime.
National Security Advisor Sullivan had to be brought to explain that the US has ‘no intention’ of using chemical weapons.
Later, speaking to the 82nd Airborne in Poland, President Biden told them that US troops would soon be in Ukraine. He said to the troops, ‘you’re going to see — you’re going to see women, young people standing — standing the middle of — in front of a … tank, just saying, “I’m not leaving. I’m holding my ground.”’
A White House spokesman had to clarify that, ‘the president has been clear we are not sending US troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position.’
Clear? Well, not really. He had just said the opposite to our own troops!
Then, at the end of Biden’s final speech in Poland, the President inadvertently told the truth: the US involvement in Ukraine is all about ‘regime change’ for Russia. Speaking of Russian President Putin, he told the audience, near the border of Ukraine, ‘for God‘s sake, this man cannot remain in power.’
The President’s disaster control team immediately mobilized in the person of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who offered this pained interpretation of Biden’s clear statement, ‘I think the president, the White House, made the point last night that, quite simply, President Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else.’
No, that’s not what he said. The president has a leading Constitutional role in the formation of US foreign policy, and he said in a public speech that ‘regime change’ in Russia is US policy. Any attempt by his staffers to try to explain it away looks terrible: either the President has no idea what he’s saying so we should not take seriously what is essentially a declaration of war on Russia, or the President took the opportunity on the border with Ukraine to essentially declare war on Russia.
Presidents Reagan, Ford, and Bush Jr. were all known for their gaffes. Some were funny and some were serious. But none of them declared war on a nuclear-armed adversary in that adversary’s own backyard and then afterward had to send out staff to explain that the president didn’t mean what he just said.
Interestingly, Biden saved his most hawkish and bombastic statements for this final speech in Poland, at which none of the more cautious NATO partners like Germany and France were present. So much for ‘unity’ being the prime purpose of the trip.”
The warmongers are taking an enormous risk, even for them. Putin is not the maniac they portray him to be but rather a cautious statesman pursuing Russia’s legitimate security interests. In previous articles, I’ve cited the work of the America’s foremost expert on Putin, Professor Stephen Cohen, to show this. But no one can doubt that Putin is tough and, if cornered, will fight with everything he has. An effort to oust him could bring on a nuclear war that will destroy the world. Even if only “tactical” nuclear weapons were used, this would have disastrous consequences. As the distinguished philosopher Robert Paul Wolff has noted, “The weapons referred to as ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ are fission bombs each of which is rated as the equivalent of perhaps 3000 to 5000 tons of TNT or some similar explosive. This is referred to in shorthand as a 3 KT or 5 KT tactical nuke, a catchy form of speech that sounds hep and knowledgeable, what was called when I was young ‘inside dopester.’
Let us think about this for a moment. If Russia were to send a flight of 50 heavy bombers to attack the capital city of Ukraine and if each of these bombers were to carry four so-called ‘blockbuster’ bombs, each containing the equivalent of 1000 pounds of TNT, and if all 50 of these bombers were to drop their bombs on the capital city, causing enormous amounts of destruction and death, this would be an attack using a total of 100 tons of high explosive. If Russia were to send such a flight of bombers every day for a month, it would at the end of that month have delivered to Kyiv an explosive power equivalent to one so-called tactical nuclear weapon rated at 3 KT. In one month, Russia would have destroyed Kyiv with conventional weapons. Using a single tactical nuclear weapon, Russia would destroy Kyiv in roughly 3 seconds. To ensure the complete destruction of Kyiv, Russia might have to double down and use two or three tactical nuclear weapons. Not by any stretch of language can this be called a ‘tactical decision.’” See this.
The Ukrainian leader Zelensky, often portrayed in our captive press as a hero, has done his best to bring on a nuclear war. He wants America to be even more aggressive. “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, visibly irritated, demanded that Western nations provide a fraction of the military hardware in their stock piles to his country and asked whether they were afraid of Moscow.
Several countries have promised to send anti-armor and anti-aircraft missiles as well as small arms but Zelenskiy said Kyiv was not getting what it needed.
‘It is tanks for our state. It is missile defense. It is anti-ship weapons. That is what our partners have, that is what is just gathering dust there,” he said in his now customary late-night video address on Saturday. ‘This is all not only for the freedom of Ukraine but for the freedom of Europe.’
Ukraine needs just 1% of NATO’s aircraft and 1% of its tanks, he said, adding that it would be impossible to stop Russian attacks on the besieged southern port of Mariupol without enough tanks, armored vehicles and aircraft.
‘We’ve already been waiting 31 days. Who is in charge of the Euro-Atlantic community? Is it really still Moscow, because of intimidation?’ he said.
Zelenskiy has repeatedly argued that Russia will seek to expand further into Europe if Ukraine falls. However NATO has rebuffed his calls for a no-fly zone to be established over Ukraine on the grounds that this could provoke a wider war.”
Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com.
This article originally from the Ron Paul Institute.
