Biden and the West Continue to Beg for World War III

The Ukraine Has Already Fired Long-Range Missiles that Biden has OKed

The collapse of the Ukraine is imminent. Their army has a significant desertion problem, and a decreasing number of people are willing to fight. This is undoubtably because they know that the Ukraine is being swallowed up alive and they don’t want to be slaughtered. Russia has captured at least 25% of the Ukraine. No matter how much aid we give the Ukraine, they will continue to be overmatched by a bigger, stronger, better equipped Russian army. Not even the much vaunted “spring offensive” could make a dent in the Russian lines.

The Russian invasion of the Ukraine was a culmination of many years of the West threatening to put NATO troops on the Russia border. NATO broke its post-WWII promise to never put troops to the east of Germany. NATO has expanded many times and each time got closer and closer to Russia. In 2008, at the Bucharest NATO summit, Putin declared Georgia and Ukraine as a Russian redline. His redline meant that he would not tolerate NATO troops close to or on his borders. The threats continued under Biden as NATO, US and Ukraine would not guarantee Ukrainian NATO neutrality, so Russia invaded. As a thought experiment, imagine the US response of an alliance of China, Russia and Iran attempting to put troops on the US Mexican border.

The goal of Russia’s Ukraine invasion was not to take over the Ukraine. It was to push back the Ukrainian border to reduce Russia’s risk of being attacked by threats from NATO or other troops. The US goal, on the other hand, was to weaken Russia economically, not to protect the people of Ukraine. After all, the people of Ukraine would not have been in peril If the US had not provoked this war in the first place . What absolute depravity for the US to cause such death and destruction for economic reasons. It also didn’t work. Despite war costs, sanctions, and being banned from Western markets, Russia has had an increased GDP.

Even the Secretary General of NATO admitted that NATO and the US caused the war by threatening to put troops on the Russian border. Also, the number of times the term “unprovoked attack” was used by the media to describe the war tells us something. After all, no other US instigated war was ever described as an “unprovoked attack”. A simple Google search on “Russia unprovoked attack” returns 1.5 million results. There would be no need to reinforce that if it was truly an unprovoked war.

Biden realizes that he has already looked like a failed statesman by pulling out of Afghanistan and watching the Taliban casually stroll back into power, after 23 years of fighting. Biden’s unending support for Israel’s genocide has looked poorly for him as well. Finger wagging, setting fictious redlines and acting helpless and incompetent to end a genocide he’s funding has eroded support. Despite massive propaganda and censorship, Americans have broken through the mainstream news barrier, and the approval rating of Israel’s actions is now only 36%, according to a recent Gallop Poll.

The idea of looking weak again in the Ukraine would further hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. Hence the political ping-pong game is in action. He is aiming to be yet another sitting president presiding over a failing war who doesn’t want to look weak and foolish by ending it. The aim then becomes to keep it alive by playing the long game. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples. This situation, however, is different. Russia is not like any of the countries mentioned here; they are a nuclear power that already feels threatened.

From supplying ammunition to Ukraine, then tanks, fighter jets and later cluster bombs, Biden maintained that firing missiles deep into Russia would constitute crossing a redline that could cause WWIII. This idea was unthinkable when the war started. Yet now Biden has lifted the ban he had set on using long-range missiles. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, responding to the lifting of the ban said he would “leave it up to the Ukraine to decide how to best handle its war”. Nothing quite like letting a desperate country facing impending collapse to make decisions that can impact the world. Russia in turn, has issued warnings to the US. Russia’s deputy foreign minister Ryabkov was quoted as saying:

I would like to warn American leaders against miscalculations that could have fatal consequences. For unknown reasons, they underestimate the seriousness of the rebuff they may receive,"

Politico reported on 5/29/2024 that the Biden Administration was “open to change” and the policy “would change as necessary”. Biden soon gave a “partial lift” of the ban. This was already an escalation, because Ukraine was given permission to fire missiles near the Russian borders or against Russian attacking troops. Within a couple of days there was further escalation as Biden gave permission for the Ukraine to strike inside Russia. As a reference point, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia threatened to put missiles in Cuba, pointing at the United States. The US response was so strong that many thought the world was going to end.

Nobody knows where Putin’s redline is. Nobody knows where Biden’s redline is either, for that matter. Biden’s redlines have shown to be vapor based. Rafah was a good example of the tenuous redlines. One of Biden’s campaign promises was to “stabilize relation with Russia”. Now we’ve gone from that empty promise to allowing the Ukraine to strike “deep inside Russia” with powerful, long-range missiles. The Ukraine has already struck an area in the Crimea with missiles. This could be the first of many to come, perhaps closer and closer to Moscow.

It doesn’t end there. France, a NATO nation, may send military “instructors” to Ukraine to “train” the Ukrainian soldiers. Debates in Europe continue over whether combat troops should be sent to the Ukraine. Sending European troops would be another escalation. An escalation from there could mean NATO troops in Ukraine. Then we are looking at a hot war. Considering how quickly the policy changed from a missile ban to a partial missile ban to no missile ban, the next intensification could quickly arise.

What is the military purpose of this escalation? It can’t be to try and save the Ukraine. Russia sees this war as an existential threat and is unlikely to back down. Russia has resolve to keep the land they are occupying. Putin has shown that he’s not going to bow to Westers muscle flexing. On the other hand, Professor

John J. Mearsheimer

has stated that the US does not see the Ukraine as geostrategically important enough to send US troops to die there.

History has taught us that this escalation is not because Putin is an authoritarian, either. The US loves authoritarians and dictators and sides with them all over the globe. The problem begins when a country, democratic or not, refuses to do the West’s bidding.

So, what could the escalation be about? it seems like a high-risk gamble by the US to turn this into a forever war, with consequences that are unspeakable. Let’s not forget the tiny slice of this country, the war profiteers, and their influence over Washington.

The Ukraine is desperate to keep itself from collapse, and Biden is desperately trying to save face. For certain, the West knows that Putin is not the world-ending madman that that they portray, or the US wouldn’t recklessly provoke and escalate as they have. But that hasn’t stopped the West from brinkmanship. Early on, the Russian/German Nord stream Pipeline was blown up and later on Ukraine deployed cluster bombs. Firing Westen missiles at civilians inside Russia may poke the beast one time too many. Considering that Russia has nuclear arsenal comparable to the US, the entire planet could be at stake.