Biden’s only objective in Ukraine, as in Afghanistan, is that the bad guys win well before the midterms

Last August, Joe Biden abandoned Afghanistan to 13th century barbarians. The result was and is an ongoing bloodbath. Getting out of Afghanistan may or may not have been a good move, but the way Biden did it was destructive and disgraceful.

Biden’s generals told the press that they recommended to Biden a more orderly approach. Biden denied that. He essentially said his generals are liars.

Paradoxically, Biden simultaneously contended that his cut-and-run was “an extraordinary success.” If he believes that, then why doesn’t he say, “Yeah, the generals recommended a more measured withdrawal, but I was smart enough to override them in order to obtain this extraordinary success.”

Lawyers call this “pleading in the alternative.” There’s an old lawyers’ joke where the accused murderer says, “I didn’t kill him and if I did it was in self-defense.” In Biden’s case, he says, “It was an extraordinary success for which I’m responsible but if it wasn’t then it’s the generals who are responsible and they’re lying if they say they aren’t.”

By the way, how can a circumstance persist where the Commander in Chief is directly contradicted about factual events by his generals – a circumstance where one side or the other is clearly lying? If it’s the generals who are lying about what they told the Commander in Chief, then shouldn’t they be relieved of their command?

On the other hand, if it’s the Commander in Chief who is lying, as is pretty clearly the case here, then we have a situation where the generals can forever exert leverage over the Commander in Chief by threatening to go public with their proof.

In any event, Biden found it easy to contend that his Afghanistan debacle was an extraordinary success because by his lights it was. He figured the U.S. would lose in Afghanistan eventually, so it was better for him politically to get it over with quickly. That way, people would forget about it by the midterms. If that means more people die, suffer, get raped and thrown into medieval torture chambers, well, Biden couldn’t care less.

Fast forward six months to Ukraine where a sovereign European nation is being invaded by a totalitarian empire-builder right out of the 19th century – an empire-builder who undoubtedly paid close attention to Biden’s fiasco in Afghanistan. Everyone saw this coming. The White House repeatedly said that Russians were on the verge of invading Ukraine in February. Biden himself told Ukrainian President Zelensky that Kyiv would be “sacked.”

But Biden was slow to provide arms or money to the Ukrainians. His warnings to Zelensky were apparently not for the purpose of readying the Ukrainians for war but for the purpose of talking them into a surrender. Biden’s love of surrender fits right in with his party. A recent survey shows that a majority of Democrats would not defend even America if it were invaded, while a good two-thirds of Republicans would.

After the invasion, Poland was ready to turn over 28 Soviet-built fighter planes to the brave Ukrainians. Biden killed that deal, reportedly out of fear that the Russian invaders wouldn’t like it. (Imagine the media’s reaction if it were Trump who killed a deal to help beat the Russians.)

Biden refused to stop oil imports from Russia to America until both Democrats and Republicans in Congress said they were preparing to pass legislation barring such imports.

Last week, the Pentagon reportedly told Congress that they wanted to send a few hundred Special Forces troops to Ukraine last December to provide hurry-up training to the Ukrainian military in urban guerrilla warfare in case things were to come to that (as they have). The White House killed that proposal – apparently out of fear again that the Russians wouldn’t like it. True to form, the White House has once again implied that military leaders are lying in revealing this to Congress.

Either the entire Pentagon or the entire White House is a regular den of liars.

At the end of the day, Biden in Ukraine is bent on duplicating his “extraordinary success” in Afghanistan. He doesn’t give a damn about people’s lives or freedom or whether the bad guys win. He just wants it over well before the midterms.

Biden assumes in this that people are very forgetful. He may be projecting a bit.

36 thoughts on “Biden’s only objective in Ukraine, as in Afghanistan, is that the bad guys win well before the midterms

    • I really don’t think Glenn would be interested…but it is safe to assume that whether Marxian or establishment small ‘r’ republicans most would be happy to accelerate the descent into tyranny.

  1. Is there any significant decision made by the Biden administration that benefited the United States more than it did our enemies? If so, please leave a list when you reply. Thank you.

    • Well, there’s that decision made regarding, that, ugh, it on the tip of my tongue, what was that thing?
      Hummm. I’ll have to get back to you. Can it be a list of one?

  2. Mike Field Clovis, CA

    Glenn – The difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine is that in the Ukraine situation, we have a path to a permanent peaceful settlement building on past settlements and agreements. Essentially, all we have to do is take the position that the Crimea is what it is, historic Russian territory, and enter into a agreement which defines the purpose and boundaries of NATO.

    You can’t let people with the geopolitical and diplomatic sense of a fifth grader dictate America’s response. We are in a delicate situation, but it is one that diplomacy and accommodation can settle. My suspicion is, Russian and Ukraine will produce a bilateral settlement. The Ukraine political class probably has seen enough in three weeks of the dilettantism and unreliability of the West to think twice about wanting to depend or emulate the West.

    Mike ________________________________

  3. I think like Putin, the Democrats assumed that the Ukraine invasion would have been over and done within a couple of days like Hitler walking into the Sudetenland. A long, drawn out affair which will continue to destabilize markets is the last thing they expected or want. The Democrats will try to blame inflation here as Putin’s fault, but know that if gasoline is anywhere near $5-a-gallon come November, they’re toast in the midterms. Biden is certainly not going to do anything that is likely to prolong this crisis from what they consider its ultimate conclusion, in the name of avoiding an “escalation”.

  4. ” If it’s the generals who are lying about what they told the Commander in Chief, then shouldn’t they be relieved of their command?”

    Yes. Apparently, all parties involved were in cahoots. The lies are simply distractions meant for the citizenry. Will Biden be looking at his watch when Americans return in flag-draped coffins from Eurasia’s war?
    Let’s say a prayer for journalist Ben Hall. He’s been in the thick of it from the beginning. I understand that he may have been injured a few minutes ago.

  5. The Quinnipiac poll Glenn cites can be viewed as encouraging in that it shows most Americans agreeing on basics, at least for now. Squeeze Russia, accept refugees, live up to our Nato Treaty obligations, don’t burn up the planet. NATO is key here – the USA should not act alone (like Poland tried to). Moreover, because the danger is much more immediate for Europe, we need to follow Europe’s lead, not dictate strategy and tactics. The Biden administration is actually doing a decent job in those ways.

    Domestically as well, bipartisanship is more important than ever. It was politically wise to wait on congressional sentiment about banning Russian oil imports. Strategically, they are fairly insignificant to us. Waiting a few days to hear from Congress made the action clearly bipartisan. (remember, the White House supported a bipartisan Congress on this.)

    We are nearly at war. We need to pull together, and the Biden admin is doing a decent job of acting in unison with Congress, Europe and NATO to contain Putin while trying to avoid WW III and assured mutual nuclear destruction. It is not an easy task and I don’t see what good continual political sniping at Joe Biden is doing our country. How about something more thoughtful, acknowledging what the Admin has done well, pointing out what they might have done better, and discussing viable strategies and tactics for the coming weeks and months?

    • I noticed you have no comment on the point for which I cited that survey — that a majority of Democrats would refuse to defend even America against foreign invasion. That alone may well rebut your comment, but, in case not, here’s a little more.

      I think to a Dem, “bipartisanship” means the Republicans should agree with the Dems. And that’s the basis for your criticism of my criticism of Biden. I suppose I could just as well suggest that you need to get “bipartisan” with me — ie start agreeing with me. But I’m not quite that cynical.

      You ask me to “point… out what [Biden] might have done better” OK. Here’s a partial list:

      *Not humiliating America and betraying her allies in Afghanistan.
      *Not lying to the American people about what the Pentagon is recommending.
      *Not calling his Generals liars.
      *Allowing the Poles to give Ukrainians some jets, since, after all, the Poles are right next door to this war that Biden wants to lose quickly, and Biden is not.
      *Leading Congress and NATO rather than reluctantly following, and thereby creating the impression (apparently an accurate one) that Biden’s goal is appeasement, not victory.
      *Following the Pentagon’s recommenndation to give the Ukrainians some basic training in urban warfare, rather than rejecting that recommendation and then accusing the Pentagon of lying when they say they gave it.

      Meanwhile, I refuse to support President Doofus to the detriment of Ukrainians, Europeans, Americans and the world, all to serve some commenter’s suggestion that it’s time for me to “bipartisanly” agree with the incompetent, unpopular, disaster-prone leader of his political party. Bipartisanship, my ass. We need a president.

      • I’m certainly not suggesting anyone should agree with things they genuinely disagree with. But there are things many of us do agree on. Note the Quinnipiac survey. I’m suggesting it would be more productive to start from those things.

        Differences, big ones, exist as well. They should be illuminated, discussed, understood, and either resolved or compromised. But you make this impossible by starting from “I refuse to support President Doofus ….. Bipartisanship, my ass. ….” No one is asking you to approve of this President. For example, the country seems pretty evenly split on approving oof how the Admin is handling the Ukraine crisis, but pretty much in agreement that Mr. Putin is not mentally stable. So, this is a very dangerous situation. VERY dangerous. Clearly, we’re stuck with the President we’ve got unless he dies in office, in which case I’m guessing you’ll be even unhappier with his replacement. Thoughtful listening by all concerned seems advisable. Those opposed to Biden’s decisions need to present coherent alternatives now. Time wasted on grousing about what’s past only brings us that much closer to nuclear war. (This is equally true about time wasted on time grousing about the Trump administration.)

        The “Stay and Fight” Quinnipiac question shows 40% of of Republicans and 68% of Democrats would stay and fight. Conversely, 60% of Democrats and 32 % of Republicans would cut and run. Either way, even on that issue, there is some common ground to work from.These answers are also heavily correlated with age and Republicans tend older than Democrats. As is often the case (in both parties), older folks are relatively willing to send younger people to war while those who actually bleed and die are less certain. Overall, only 55% of respondents said they’d stay and fight. Do you really believe that only liberal Democrats are responsible for this widespread disillusionment with our government and even our way of life? TO me, it seems more productive to think in less partisan terms rather than taking every opportunity to blame everything on some “other,” be that Republicans, Trump Republicans, Democrats or Mexicans.

        You mostly supported former President Trump, who was and apparently remains a Putin supporter. Now, suddenly, you are all Putin this and Putin that. Where were you while Trump was cozying up to the rich Russian bully? You were dead wrong about how far Putin would go. In the run up to this tragedy, I don’t recall reading much from you about how EU/NATO post iron curtain expansionism nurtured Putin paranoia. (Some of your readers did bring this up.) Much as we must now forcefully resist Putin, it might be good to remember that we didn’t get here through Putin’s efforts alone. Further back, you said we might be okay with Biden because he is weak and most likely, Wall Street would get to his wallet before the left got his ear. Apparently you were wrong about that as well.

        You have many readers. (I’m one of them.) Ergo, what you say matters. If I were you, I’d temper my blame and anger with humility. You are entitled to your opinions of course, but the consistent and often vehement certainty with which you express them (President Doofus?) is unwarranted and only serves to further divide us, thereby strengthening our enemies.

      • You’re right, rkd, that “President Doofus” is a bit crude. I resolve to refer to him in a more detached clinical way that respectfully reflects his obvious medical condition.

        That condition has almost certainly been diagnosed by his doctors through the cognitive tests that any doctor would administer to a patient with his age and symptoms. Good results on those tests would surely have been released, as Trump’s were. Sadly for him and us, Biden’s have not been.

        And so I’ll henceforth refer to him as “President Dementia.” You may not like that term either, but you’re a smart guy, and, deep down, I think you know it’s accurate. I’m not trying to hurt his feelings. After all, I doubt he reads theAspenbeat (or much else). What I’m trying to do is to get him the care and setting that might help him. And us.

      • “The “Stay and Fight” Quinnipiac question shows 40% of of Republicans and 68% of Democrats would stay and fight.”

        rkd, you got that exactly backwards. The Q poll shows that 68% of Republicans would stay and fight while only 40% of Dems would. I assume your mistake was inadvertent, and not an attempt to mislead. So I’m correcting you with this reply rather than deleting your comment.

  6. Do not underestimate the strategy of what Ludwig von Mises termed “Planned Chaos” when trying to anticipate how close to nuclear war Putin is willing to take the world i.e. how to strike the west without crossing the line and in doing so create chaos and an untenable situation short of nuclear war.

    I would suggest the recent violations of Swedish airspace and territorial waters by the Russians were meant to send a warning to Sweden…which broke with long term tradition and policy to arm Ukraine i.e. cruise missile strikes on that part of the Swedish defense industry manufacturing the weapons transferred to Ukraine.

    Checkmate NATO, Biden and the pro-war morons who will have to decide how to answer.

  7. Many thoughts about the subject matter of the post. First, I defer to nobody in my disdain, revulsion, enmity toward and undying detestation of Biden; it burns in me with the strength of a thousand supernovas. However, like the proverbial pig and truffle scenario, he is absolutely correct in rejecting the use of American soldiers or weapons on behalf of Ukraine. The time for arming and bolstering Ukraine was years ago (if at all), long before Putin began rumbling about invading. The deaths of innocent Ukrainians is more than regrettable, but the truth is that we and our NATO co-conspirators started this chain of events decades ago, when the USSR dissolved into a federation and our Secretary of State, Baker promised the Russians that NATO would not advance one step farther into the former Soviet satellite states. (Please don’t buy the lie that he really didn’t do that; there was no other reason for the former USSR to accept his proposals about reunifying Germany but for assurances that Russia would not, once again, face invasion from the west.) It was on the basis on that promise, made in 1990 that reunification was accepted by Russia. Ever since, we and they have been engaged in a back-and-forth over this issue, with the usual result that another country was admitted into NATO, coming closer and closer to the Russian border. (If you think the Russians forgot that Germany invaded through Poland and Ukraine in 1941 and killed around 25,000,000 of them, you are sadly mistaken; it is practically a genetic memory.) Biden’s motives for choosing this path are irrelevant to the correctness thereof. One may be a pusillanimous coward and flee from a fight and still have made the correct decision. This is the situation that presents itself today. I did not believe (nor did Our Gracious Host) that Putin would invade Ukraine; it seemed to offer no realpolitic benefit and much downside. However, having proven us wrong in our estimations of his willingness to invade, Putin also established that he is at least willing to consider expanding his military options should third party actors be too aggressive in their assistance to Ukraine. I can not rule out his threat to go nuclear (which is well within current Russian military strategic thought, by the way) at which time all the craven chest-thumpers demanding “no fly zones,” or other military intervention can gaze out on the nuclear wasteland that was formerly their backyard (if they can gaze at anything with mortal eyes) and say, with ultimate chagrin, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

    • Great comment, sir. I would add only that our State dept and CIA have done everything underhanded they can think of over the past 20 years to get us to this point, in order to satisfy their insane obsession with regime change in Russia. Ukraine is a a sewer of corruption, and they stupidly have allowed the Americans to diddle them until Putin put his foot down, and now he has. We and Ukraine have been begging for this invasion, and sure enough we got it.

      Ukraine is geographically a buffer state and should forever and at all times remain politically neutral between Russia and Europe. Our war policy here should be to withdraw all our forces, to immediately quit NATO since there is no reason for it’s existence, and to let Europe handle their own border issues with Russia. We have serious border issues of our own. This does not signify any approval of Putin’s actions, just the recognition that he will conquer Ukraine as far as he wants, we can’t stop it, and it’s not our fight. Never was.

      What we SHOULD have been doing for the past 20 years, was coopting Russia as far as is practicable, to defend ourselves against the aggressive ChiComs. Russsia’s culture is Christian and Western, and they would naturally co-exist with the West if we would all do the work necessary. Of course, our evil munchkins in the CIA and Foggy Bottom are driving Russia into the exact opposite configuration, and when the dollar is no longer a global reserve currency because of their malicious meddlings, we will pay a fearsomely huge price. This is a blunder of historic consequence.

    • Steve, everything you said in support of your argument to let Russia invade and annex Ukraine can be applied equally well to an invasion and annexation of Poland, Romania, the Balkans and Hungary. Will you let Russia continue its march so long as they rattle the nuclear sword? If so, why on earth would they ever stop?

      • Why would they stop? Precisely because they now realize that they’re handling a porcupine that they won’t be able to control without enduring thousands of quills for decades to come. As you reasoned when you predicted that Putin would not invade, he would be totally off his rocker to attempt to subdue Poland, even If he pulls it off with Ukraine, which he won’t. Hell, Poland and Hungary won’t even be ruled by the EU, which has now pulled funding because these two nations won’t enshrine LGBTQ standards, let alone permit hordes to Muslim immigrants to cross their borders.

        I think Steve is right to urge restraint. Putin will cook his own goose soon enough.

      • “Restraint” is of course a term with a connotation — a good one, and I assume that’s why you used it. After all who would advocate “UN-restrained” action in war?

        A more neutral way of expressing your sentiment would be that you advocate a level of resistance no greater than we are now employing (or perhaps less) while I advocate more.

        These are not binary choices. I don’t, for example, advocate a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine because I think that would inevitably lead to shooting between Russian and NATO airplanes. I do think, however, that we should have given the Ukrainians training in urban warfare last December before the invasion, and I do think the Poles should be allowed to do as they please with their old MIGs. The WSJ also has an interesting piece today on establishing Lviv as a free city within an occupied Ukraine, something like Berlin during the last Cold War.

  8. Regarding the Quinnipiac poll item, “Americans were asked what they would do if they were in the same position as Ukrainians are now: would they stay and fight or leave the country?” —

    Are Americans NOT in the same position, to the extent that they (the ones who believe in the constitutional republic established by 18th-century enlightened rationalists) have indeed been under assault for quite some time by globalist “empire builders,” both foreign and domestic?

    Indeed, what IS “the country” — the America — they we are asked to either “stay and fight for” or abandon (as if there were anywhere else to go)? I see at least two countries, occupying the same geographical space, shades of red and blue notwithstanding.

    In short, this is just about the most inane poll question ever.

    • Exactly. Most Americans today will choose to support whatever governmental system which would provide food and housing, even if it meant giving up fundamental liberties which make them human, and life worth living.

  9. Glenn:
    Your only REAL error was the statement that “either the Pentagon or White House are liars!”

  10. I agree with every sentence, Steve. I don’t know what this says about me, but I can easily see what Europe is becoming, culturally and politically, through Putin’s eyes; I, too, don’t wish to be homogenized into the New World Order, which is potentially as godless and totalitarian as the old Soviet Union. Nor do I fully trust the masterful propaganda effort by the always T-shirted Zelensky and his supporters, which include the ubiquitous George Soros — what does it mean that the anti-American Soros is also pro-Ukrainian? As for our bipartisan chest-thumpers, I’m not at all sure whose side they are on in our own “war” here at home. Somehow I’m more inclined to seriously consider Madison Cawthorn’s assertion that Zelensky is “a thug” than Mitt Romney’s declaration that Tulsi Gabbard is “almost treasonous” for speaking of U.S.-funded bio labs in Ukraine.

    Biden, of course, is even more of a half-wit than Romney, but if he keeps us from igniting WWIII, well . . . .

    • Before you unload on Europe, spend more time there. I go for months at a time, mostly in the countryside on long treks. It’s not the place that’s it’s portrayed to be in popular media (though I do disagree with much of what the ruling class is doing).

      • To be sure, I am “unloading” on governments and leaders, rather than on “the people,” but I should make that distinction more clearly.

    • Zelensky might not be a good guy for US interests, but he is what Ukraine needs at the moment – a leader who fights and doesn’t run away. Biden is exactly the opposite. Biden has never made a good foreign policy decision in his life.

  11. Biden handlers are doing deliberate sabotage .. trying to hide his family’s crimes.. Pelosi’s and Kerry’s sons also got oil money from Ukraine.. Romney’s Cofer Black was in for a piece, too.. They love fossil fuels that hurt Americans.

    -2- Volodymyr Zelensky thanks Zuckerberg for helping him .. allowing praise for the Azov Battalion.

    • And I judge Trudeau — and Jacinda Arden and Scott Morrison and all the other “scamdemic” lockdown tyrants and their “Build Back Better” globalist tune-callers — by their deeds.

      Meanwhile, Zelensky — now billed in a new song as “the man who can save the world” — addresses Congress tomorrow. What can possibly go wrong? Who’s writing this script?

      • This hatred of Zelensky seems weird to me. I admire the courage and patriotism of the guy, and wish American leaders had half as much. That he might have expressed admiration in some other context for someone I loathe like Trudeau seems like small potatoes compared to what he’s doing — doing with not just talk but acts — for his people right now.

        Is the standard that everyone who’s part of the elite establishment deserves condemnation? If so, you’ve got a long list to go through. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower and going on through Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, both Bush’s, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Thomas Sowell, Antonin Scalia, etc etc etc.

        I suppose the list in fact includes everyone except Donald Trump (whom I supported and voted for twice) and his acolytes. Well, that’s telling. It sounds to me like a cult.

      • Glenn, I haven’t expressed “hatred” for Zelensky and certainly wouldn’t wish to be understood as “rooting” for Putin. However, I am wary of “powers” that seek to radically transform our civilization, that will seek to exploit this situation, just as Putin is seeking to exploit the West’s current weakness. Indeed, I know what “cults” are, and worry that one is forming around Zelensky, that will cause Congress to do something rash. I hope I will be surprised by a wisdom that I fear is absent.

  12. Let’s be honest here. A lot of people on the Right like me think the West is messed up. I share that sentiment to some degree and have written a lot about it.

    But some of those people on the Right take it a step further. They see that Putin thinks the West is messed up too — in fact, they see that he outright hates the West. On that basis, they think Putin is their enemy’s enemy, and so he must be their friend.

    They’re wrong. Putin is not our friend. He’s a horrible, disturbed, murderous, tyrannical barbarian who shells maternity hospitals and vaccum-bombs civilian cities. Maybe we need to rid ourselves of the Macrons and Trudeaus of the world. But the way to do that is to vote them out, not to encourage a maniac.

    • No question, Putin’s self-begotten “last stand” is desperate, vicious and tragic. But this is not a black-and-white matter, whereby Zelensky and NATO “good,” Putin and Russia “bad” — or the other way around.

      As for “voting them out,” we just voted Trump out — or did we? Tolerance of election fraud (which I know you don’t believe in to the extent that I do) is how maniacs are engendered.

  13. Biden is delusional and senile – of course we already know that. I don’t know if he “wants” much of anything at all. He is a puppet for his handlers. And they must know the people will remember the Afghanistan debacle in the Midterms. No, I think Biden’s handlers want an emergency that will allow them to cancel the Midterms outright. If there is a nuclear war emergency, they can rush through legislation to extend all expiring congressional terms 2 years and kick the election to 2024. Dementia Joe may actually be resisting this because he doesn’t want his children and grandchildren to be killed in a nuclear blast. Kamala Harris will have no such qualms, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s