Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

The threat of Ukrainian resistance is the likeliest spur to Russian compromise

Like I said in a previous post, it is a sad day when an unreconstructed Rockefeller Democrat/Kissingerian realist like Biden and a neo-Taft Republican isolationist like Tucker Carlson are what’s standing in the way of the neocon/Reaganite/liberal hawk ambition of World War Three with Russia. The Trotskyites and Social Democrats and their “conservative” benefactors and lackeys still want their war of revenge against the Russians.

By Noah Millman The Week

In President Biden’s widely-panned press conference last week, one of his most criticized moments was when he spoke candidly about the situation in Ukraine.

He declared that he expected Putin would “move in,” suggested that a “minor incursion” wouldn’t be as serious as a full-scale invasion, and admitted that because of “overwhelming [military] superiority,” Russia would clearly be able to win a war with its neighbor. While Biden cautioned that there would be “severe costs” imposed on Russia by the United States and its allies in the event Putin did invade, the most serious consequences he mentioned were merely the direct costs to Russia of occupying another country.

To many critics, that sounded at best like weakness, and at worst like a green light for a Russian invasion. They wanted the president to show “leadership” by threatening to halt or reverse a Russian invasion by force. The extreme foolishness of this approach is thankfully apparent to both the Biden administration and to our NATO allies, who have no stomach for a war against a neighbor that threatens them far more than it does ourselves.

But even to many who understand the reality of the situation, Biden’s acknowledgement felt like a diplomatic faux pas. Perhaps we weren’t prepared to go to war, but shouldn’t the president have emphasized that aggression will not stand?

READ MORE

Leave a Reply