Biden slipped up twice in 24 hours, confusing Iraq with Ukraine.
What is the standard for competency for presidents? At the very least, the ability to tell apart two major conflicts that affect the United States.
President Joe Biden slipped up twice in the last 24 hours by confusing the US war in Iraq with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday on the South Lawn of the White House, Biden said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been weakened by a shocking mutiny by a mercenary group that’s played a critical role in his war with Ukraine.
“He is clearly losing the war in Iraq,” Biden said of Putin, evidently meaning to refer to Ukraine. “He’s losing the war at home, and he has become a bit of a pariah around the world.”
At least he didn’t call Putin, George W. Bush.
Biden made a similar mistake while speaking to donors Tuesday evening at a campaign fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Maryland, about his efforts to galvanize US allies in support of Kyiv.
“If anybody told you — and my staff wasn’t so sure, either — that we’d be able to bring all of Europe together in the onslaught on Iraq and get NATO to be completely united, I think they would have told you it’s not likely,” the president said, again meaning to say Ukraine.
He also spoke about his “new best friend” being the “prime minister of a little country that’s now the largest in the world, China,” before correcting himself that he meant to say India.
Back in November, Biden also mixed up Iraq and Ukraine during a speech in Florida while defending his policies from accusations they have fueled inflation.
“Inflation is a worldwide problem right now because of a war in Iraq and the impact on oil, and what Russia is doing,” the president said.
He quickly caught the mistake. “I mean, excuse me, the war in Ukraine,” he said.
When the president can’t tell apart Ukraine and Iraq, it’s a major problem. Biden keeps flashing back to the Iraq War which defined the final phase of his Senate career and his vice presidency.
Even Bloomberg is forced to notice that Biden is unfit, not only because of corruption, but because his mind is untethered from the realities of the moment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2023-07-07 07:16:532023-07-07 07:20:28Can a President Who Can’t Tell Apart Iraq and Ukraine Make Decisions About Them?
The National Security Council (NSC) was reportedly worried President Joe Biden would jeopardize a shipment of ammunition to Ukraine by making a premature phone call to South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, according to classified Department of Defense (DOD) documents obtained by the Daily Caller.
The Biden administration sought artillery ammunition from South Korea as part of a push to further supply Ukraine in its war against Russia, according to the classified documents, which are dated to early March of 2023. The top secret intelligence indicates that NSC officials were concerned Biden would make a premature phone call to Yoon, throwing into doubt whether or not the U.S. would be able to secure the ammunition.
The classified documents were initially leaked online last month on various social media platforms, the first of which is believed to have been a Minecraft group on Discord. They were subsequently scrubbed from social media, before resurfacing in media reports in recent days, during which time they were acquired by the Daily Caller.
South Korea, while providing non-lethal support directly to Ukraine for over a year, has an official policy against sending lethal aid directly to nations involved in armed conflict. According to the classified documents, South Korean officials including Foreign Affairs Secretary Yi Mun-hui were concerned about who the “end-user” of ammunition sent to the United States would be and whether they would first need to alter their country’s arms policy.
The NSC “was reportedly also worried that the U.S. President would call South Korean President Yoon Sun-yeol directly” before South Korean officials were ready to have a leader-to-leader discussion about the artillery rounds, the document reads.
In response to questions from the Daily Caller about the leaked intelligence, the NSC pointed to a pair of press briefings held Monday. During those briefings, NSC spokesman Kirby and a DOD spokesperson both stated that the U.S. had been in communications with allies implicated in the intelligence leak but did not go into specifics.
South Korea reacted negatively to the leaks, demanding “appropriate measures” and claiming that a “considerable amount” of the information is fabricated. President Yoon is slated to make an official state visit to Washington later this month.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-04-12 05:16:062023-04-12 05:20:39LEAKED DOCS: NSC Was Afraid Biden Would Blow Ukraine War Plans With Premature Phone Call
Former President Donald Trump is planning to tap into “anti-war” sentiments over the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a bid to stand out in a potentially crowded field of Republican contenders heading into 2024, Politico reported, citing anonymous individuals closely tied to his campaign.
Trump has criticized the Biden administration’s handling of Ukraine, and said he would have ended the conflict in “24 hours,” according to Politico. The former president’s pivot to foreign affairs is in direct response to a growing field of potential Republican challengers, including former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“Trump is the peace president and he’s the first president in two generations to not start a war, whereas if you look at DeSantis’ congressional record, he’s voted for more engagement and more military engagement overseas,” an anonymous individual close to Trump told Politico.
The former president hopes his “America First” agenda will stand out among the other likely political opponents, who have signaled support for supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, according to Politico.
Shortly after Russia’s invasion, Haley said “this isn’t just a war for Ukraine, its a war for freedom.” In October, Pompeo said the U.S. must supply Ukraine with the necessary resources.
While others want to foolishly march us into WW3 over Russia and Ukraine, Trump is the only candidate running with the courage to stand up to the corrupt bipartisan foreign policy establishment.https://t.co/RKHzg4B2AP
“I do think national security is going to be a much more important issue in 2024 than in many of the most recent presidential elections,” John Bolton, former national security adviser to the Trump Administration, told Politico, in lieu of the recent Chinese balloon national security breach.
After several days of the balloon traveling through American air space, it was shot down over the Carolinas.
Trump also called out his former secretary of State, claiming Pompeo took too much credit for the Trump administration’s foreign accomplishments, according to Politico.
Republican Sen. J.D. Vance from Ohio praised Trump’s policy plans, “I’m supporting him for president in 2024 because he’s the only person certain to do it,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Haley’s former UN ambassador experience will likely come in handy in this political match up, those close to Haley told Politico.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-02-07 07:02:382023-02-07 07:02:50‘The Peace President’: Trump’s 2024 Plan Is To Run Against The War In Ukraine
“What the Zuck?” is a valid question asked in the title of the Breitbart article below, “What the Zuck: Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on Platform.”
In 2021, before the Azov battalion became accepted as a key element of Ukraine’s defense against Russia, Time magazine did an exposé on the group. Some key points that are relevant to the US and other Western countries about the Azov movement, which has denied its neo-Nazi activities for years: Time points out that in October 2019:
40 members of Congress signed a letter calling—unsuccessfully—for the U.S. State Department to designate Azov a foreign terrorist organization. “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years,” the letter said.
Time conducted its own investigations:
TIME, in more than a dozen interviews with Azov’s leaders and recruits, found that the key to its international growth has been its pervasive use of social media, especially Facebook, which has struggled to keep the group off its platform. “Facebook is the main channel.”
The Azov Regiment doesn’t aim to only protect Ukraine, but to spread its National Socialist ideology. There could even be violence in America itself:
In their letter to the State Department in 2019, U.S. lawmakers noted that “the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear.”
Azov’s main recruitment center in Kyiv disseminates Nazi propaganda. “On the ground floor is a shop called Militant Zone, which sells clothes and key chains with stylized swastikas and other neo-Nazi merchandise.”
The Azov movement insists it is not neo-Nazi, yet its members have been captured giving Hitler salutes and being virulently anti-Semitic….
Members even muse that some Jews would not be allowed to stay in Ukraine if they ever seized power.
At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, why is the Azov Regiment being welcomed back on Facebook? Mark Zuckerberg has weaponized the Facebook platform as a political tool, employing bold and unapologetic censorship tactics to target users with views that oppose those of the establishment Left. Meanwhile, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were allowed on Facebook, and now the Azov Regiment. Facebook, of course, banned Donald Trump. The reasoning that governs Facebook (Meta) concerning the Azov battalion is that as the group is “under the command and control of the Ukrainian government,” it is benign and has shed its Nazi elements.
But that line of reasoning is irrational. The neo-Nazi Azov Regiment was formally incorporated into the Ukraine National Guard since November 11, 2014. Its character hasn’t changed just because Ukraine has now been invaded. The change from “Battalion” to “Regiment” was cosmetic — an attempt to rebrand in the face of the war with Russia. As that war goes on, the Doomsday Clock has now moved closer to midnight.
The decision to provide a forum for neo-Nazis will likely backfire on “Zuck.”
Facebook (now known as Meta) has removed Ukraine’s Azov Regiment — members of which regularly display Nazi symbols and signs on their uniforms — from its list of dangerous individuals and organizations. With this change, Mark Zuckerberg is welcoming members of the Azov Regiment who were once blacklisted to utilize his massive platform.
The Washington Post reports that as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, Facebook has modified its approach to content moderation. The neo-Nazi Ukrainian military group Azov Regiment was recently removed from the social media behemoth’s list of potentially harmful people and groups. With this modification, members of the Azov Regiment will be able to sign up for Facebook and Instagram accounts and post content without worrying about it being taken down unless it violates the platforms’ content policies. Other users will be able to openly laud and support the group’s work due to the change.
This policy change comes after months of criticism of how the social media juggernaut is handling the conflict, with many questioning where it draws the line between promoting free speech about the conflict and containing rhetoric that could have violent or dangerous offline repercussions. The company has been criticized by its Oversight Board, an independent group of primarily leftist activists, academics, and experts who oversee Facebook’s content moderation decisions, for going too far in removing content that challenges authoritarian governments or leaders.
Historically, there has been controversy surrounding the Azov Regiment. It is one of Ukraine’s most skilled military units and has engaged in combat with Russian forces in strategic locations like the besieged city of Mariupol and close to Kiev. However, there were worries that the group was drawing extremists because of its ties to its neo-Nazi ideology. The Azov forces were partially referred to when Russian President Vladimir Putin described his invasion of Ukraine as an effort to “de-Nazify” the nation.
According to Facebook, the neo-Nazi Azov Movement and the Azov Regiment are no longer affiliated. It mentions that the unit is formally under the command and control of the Ukrainian government. According to Facebook, there are still “elements of the Azov Movement, including the National Corp., and its founder Andriy Biletsky” on its list of potentially harmful people and groups. “Hate speech, hate symbols, calls for violence, and any other content which violates our Community Standards are still banned, and we will remove this content if we find it,” the company said.
Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, praised Facebook’s choice and singled out former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, Fakebook’s president for international affairs. “Means a lot for every Ukrainian. New approach enters the force gradually,” Fedorov tweeted. “Big contribution @nickclegg & his team in sharing truthful content about war.”…..
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2023-01-26 06:19:512023-03-02 15:41:06Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on its Platform
Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine is approaching its first anniversary. The war being fought by Russian forces today is, however, very different from that being fought when Russia first invaded Ukraine.
Putin appeared to have ignored or not been told about improvements in the Ukrainian armed forces that separatist and Russian forces fighting in the Donbas region since 2014 experienced first-hand. Nonetheless, during the first weeks of the war, Russian forces secured significant territory in eastern Ukraine.
Neither side has been able to gain a decisive advantage on the battlefield. Russia’s army in Ukraine has not collapsed — despite the predictions of many western observers — and shows no signs of doing so. Here’s why.
Although Putin for many months wouldn’t acknowledge that his so-called special military operation in Ukraine was in fact a full-fledged war, he has certainly now done so — both in words and actions.
His change of tack has been accompanied by a considerable strengthening of Russia’s army in Ukraine. The partial mobilization of reservists has given the Russian army far greater human resources than it started with.
The types of problems with the “command and control” of Russian troops at the beginning of the war have been reduced for operations of more limited scope. Typically less experienced and lacking extensive training, Russian reservists are better suited to the more limited and methodical operations of today.
Russian forces also have considerable experience fighting the sort of artillery-heavy war now being fought.
Russian forces attempted to rush the Chechen capital of Grozny back in late 1994 in a manner not dissimilar to the attack on Kyiv in 2022. In the light of that failure, they adopted the sort of tried-and-tested, artillery-centred approach honed during the Second World War to reduce the city before capturing it. That approach was applied to Mariupol.
As an historian of the Russian and Soviet military, I am well aware of what might be regarded as a Russian cultural disposition towards rash initial offensive operations that make way to a more methodical and measured follow-up. In addition to the case of the seizure of Grozny during the Chechen wars, the Soviet Union’s great Patriotic War is littered with examples of this phenomenon.
This has often been accompanied by a psychological doubling-down and a deeper commitment to the task in hand. There are plenty of signs that this has been the situation for the Russian army since the fall.
Western support of Ukrainian efforts to recapture all territory lost since 2014 is the sort of no-compromise stance that feeds acceptance of the Russian government’s argument that the West has been out to get Russia for some time, and that NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders is part of a process that justifies Russia drawing a line in the sand.
Both sides will suffer shortages in manpower and material as the war drags on. Russia has large reserves, along with a handful of overt allies like Iran and North Korea — whereas Ukraine is backed by the weight of the NATO alliance.
Long war is likely
Both sides therefore have the capacity to keep fighting for the foreseeable future. More western equipment, including some of the latest western tanks and other armoured vehicles, will undoubtedly strengthen the Ukrainian military in the short term. But more vehicle types complicate training, maintenance and supply issues.
If the war continues along its current trajectory, neither side is likely to gain a decisive advantage. One side or the other may gain temporary advantage as they escalate and counter-escalate, but any advantage for either Russia or Ukraine is unlikely to be sustained.
Sadly, in the absence of any negotiations — and certainly meaningful talks in which both sides will have to give as well as take — the bloodshed is likely to continue for some time yet.
Professor Alexander Hill has taught history at the University of Calgary since 2004. He has PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge and specializes in Soviet military and… More by Alexander Hill
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2023-01-25 07:25:252023-01-25 07:31:22Why Russia’s war in Ukraine today is so different from a year ago
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Matt Taibbi, contributing editor at Rolling Stone, released what Elon Musk has referred to as “The Twitter Files,” Friday afternoon detailing how the social media platform suppressed a New York Post story regarding a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden.
The NYP story revealed an email — which was verified soon after by the Daily Caller News Foundation — that connected President Joe Biden with an executive at the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, with the executive thanking the president’s son for “giving me an opportunity to meet your father.” Taibbi alleged that former head of legal, policy and trust Viyaja Gadde played a “key role,” in the decision to suppress the story, which was made without the knowledge of then-CEO Jack Dorsey, but without any government involvement.
Taibbi tweeted an email indicating that Twitter’s trust and safety team initially explained to other employees that it made the decision to suppress the story — the company even went so far as to prevent it from being sent in private messages — because it violated Twitter’s policy for sharing “hacked materials.” Taibbi tweeted two additional emails that show Twitter employees discussing posts flagged by the Democratic National Committee and Biden staff, and communication on how to moderate the posts.
Democratic Rep. Khanna of California reached out to Gadde personally after the story was suppressed, concerned that Twitter’s actions were a “violation of the 1st Amendment [sic] principles,” according to Taibbi. Carl Szacbo, general counsel at trade association NetChoice that advocates for limited government intervention online, sent a letter to Twitter’s head of Public Policy, Lauren Culberston, noting that while members from both parties were frustrated with Twitter’s response to the situation, the three Democratic lawmakers they had polled were in agreement that social media companies needed to moderate more, arguing that “the First Amendment isn’t absolute.”
Sharing the NYP story was banned on Twitter from Oct. 14-16, 2020, a move that Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, described as a mistake in an interview on Nov. 30, 2022. Dozens of former intelligence officials criticized the NYP story in October 2020 as likely linked to Russian disinformation in an open letter, according to Politico; however, the veracity of the laptop’s contents has been confirmed by several major news organizations since the DCNF.
Facebook also prevented users from sharing the story, which alleged that the laptop’s hard drive contained video of Hunter Biden using drugs while engaging in sexual activities.
Months before the NYP story, tapes leaked by Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament with connections to Russia’s intelligence, alleged that Joe Biden had pressured the former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire a prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, where his son was a member of the board, when he was the Vice President.
Twitter did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-12-02 20:14:032022-12-02 20:29:17Musk Releases Details On How Twitter Censored The Hunter Biden Laptop Story
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The foreign minister of Hungary, Péter Szijjártó, in part, blamed the current war between Ukraine and Russia on President Joe Biden in an exclusive interview Wednesday with the Daily Caller. He argued that if the 2020 election had played out differently, there would be no war.
Szijjártó sat down for an interview with the Caller after speaking at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) International Ministerial Conference and discussed a variety of different issues affecting the U.S. and Europe, including the war in Ukraine. Throughout the interview, Szijjártó made it clear he believes that if former President Donald Trump and former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel were still in power, the war would not have started.
“The European economy is suffering. Europe is suffering. That is why the only solution for Europe is peace. But definitely, peace not will come with this behavior. What the U.S. administration has been showing. Why? Because in order to create peace, you would need to talk. You would need to communicate,” Szijjártó said during the interview. “And you know, I am usually under very heavy pressure and criticism of why I still talk to the Russians. But, you know, I mean, you cannot afford not to talk to them when you are almost hundred percent dependent on their energy sources and Russia is a reality in Europe, and Russia will remain a reality in Europe regardless of the outcome of this war.”
He continued:
So, you know, what we are definitely sure about is that if your presidential election had played out differently in 2020, this war would not have broken out. As much as I can be sure about things that didn’t happen, I am pretty sure that this would have been the case because we are currently, globally speaking, we are currently lacking leaders. President Trump was a real leader. Chancellor Merkel was a real leader. So what I know is that if Chancellor Merkel. And if President Trump had stayed in power, this war, I’m pretty sure, would not have been broken out. So that’s why what we hope is that there will be some American-Russian talks in this regard because don’t be misled. Don’t be misled. This is necessary to create peace. Russian-American talks.
On Monday, a group of 30 Democrats in Congress requested that the Biden administration seek negotiations with Putin. Several have since walked back their support.
Szijjártó echoed their concerns, however, mentioning the upcoming November G-20 summit in Indonesia, which Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to attend, as an opportunity for the two leaders to talk. The Hungarian minister’s suggestion comes despite claims that U.S. officials are making sure Biden does talk with Putin, per Politico. Biden himself previously told CNN’s Jake Tapper said he will not meet the Russian president except maybe to discuss American Britney Griner, who is serving a 9-year sentence in Russian prison.
“I do hope that those discussions, which are necessary to finish the war, will take place soon. And I don’t want to degrade anyone, but I am pretty certain that these negotiations must take place between the American and the Russian administration,” Szijjártó said. “And, you know, I hope that both of them will behave responsibly because I understand that there will be a G20 meeting. I understand that there is a chance that both of the presidents might be there. And to be honest, I think it would be very, very complicated to explain to the world from both perspectives, why they have not met, if they. If they are on the same place. So, you know, we in Hungary cannot do anything more than just wish, hope, and pray.”
“I want to underline that I really do believe and think that if he had stayed in power, this wouldn’t have broken out,” he added.
As of Oct. 3, the U.S. has spent 52 billion euros in military, financial and humanitarian aid in Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Hungary has urged an immediate ceasefire and end to the conflict.
The Daily Caller contacted the White House about Szijjártó’s comments to which they did not immediately respond.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-10-27 07:30:032022-10-27 07:36:37EXCLUSIVE: Hungarian Foreign Minister Says Ukraine-Russia War Would Not Have Happened Under Trump
Biden’s handlers cannot necessarily be believed, but as there has been close cooperation between Russia and Iran for years, there is nothing inherently implausible about this. If it is true, there must be some quid pro quo, with Russia in some way aiding the Islamic Republic in putting down the freedom uprising inside Iran.
Iranian military personnel are on the ground in occupied Ukrainian territories providing aid to the Russian military in their ongoing invasion, the White House confirmed on Thursday night.
“We can confirm that Russian military personnel based in Crimea have been piloting Iranian UAVs and using them to conduct kinetic strikes across Ukraine in strikes against Kyiv, and in recent days we assess that Iranian personnel — Iranian military personnel — were on the ground in Crimea and assisted Russia in these operations,” said US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price….
“In spite of all this we’ve seen Russia and Iran continue to lie…continue to claim that they are not providing this material,” said Price on Thursday night.
The denials continued last weekend when Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdullahian told his Portuguese counterpart that Iran did not sell drones or any weapons to either party to the conflict.
“We believe that arming either side will prolong the war, and we do not think that war is the right way,” Abdullahian said according to Maariv.
Price said that “indisputable proof” had emerged of Irain’s [sic] involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War and had been presented to the UN Security Council on Wednesday.
Images of Iranian-Russian drones have emerged in recent days on social and mainstream media platforms. CNN was shown a largely intact reconnaissance drone by the Ukrainian military, which claimed that there had been efforts to cover up its Iranian origin….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-10-23 05:40:012022-10-23 05:42:06Biden’s handlers claim Iranian soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine aiding the Russians
Congress has complied with the Biden administration’s request to include $12 billion for Ukraine in its stopgap funding bill, Reuters reported Monday.
GOP senators remained divided over whether to support the funding request in the continuing resolution, a funding bill that needs to be passed by Sept. 30 to avert a government shutdown, CNN reported on Sept. 19. However, a source familiar with the ongoing negotiations said Congress had agreed to $12 billion in aid on top of the $4o billion authorized in May, Reuters reported.
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told CNN the funding package would contain a combination of military, humanitarian and economic assistance.
“I think whatever we do on Ukraine, we ought to be doing it separately from the CR,” Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott previously said to CNN, referring to the continuing resolution. “I think we’ve gotta have a clean CR that goes through Congress.”
Some Republican lawmakers accused Biden of attempting to stuff a massive amount of aid in the funding package to boost Democrats’ prospects ahead of the midterms, Fox News reported. If Republicans vote against the bill in protest against the lack of accountability measures available to monitor the aid, the Biden administration could construe GOP opposition as tacit support for or apathy toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and his war in Ukraine.
“This newest call from President Biden is simply a superficial midterm election gimmick that will only damage our country in both the short and long term,” said Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona told Fox News earlier in September.
However, the administration asked for funding in accord with the Ukrainian army’s needs and capabilities on the battlefield, a spokesperson for the National Security Council told Fox News.
Ukraine’s recent success in taking back territory Russia occupied early in the war has bolstered the administration’s confidence that Western equipment and support is playing a decisive role in fueling the advance of the overmatched Ukrainian military.
So far, the Biden administration has distributed roughly $15 billion in aid to Ukraine since January 2021, with most of that coming after the Russian invasion in February 2022.
“Roughly three-quarters of the direct military and budgetary support that Congress previously provided for Ukraine has been disbursed or committed, with even more expected by the end of the fiscal year,” the White House’s budget director said on Aug. 30.
Today, @SecBlinken announced an additional $457.5 million in civilian security and criminal justice assistance for Ukraine. This aid will strengthen the vital work of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to serve and protect Ukrainian civilians. https://t.co/AET6VfRMjE
In May, 57 GOP senators and 11 representatives had opposed the larger funding bill over the potential for corruption, facing backlash from Democratic congressmembers for being “soft on Putin,” Fox News reported.
“We all want to help, we’re all appalled by what Russia has done in Ukraine,” Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry told Fox news. “But we also have to stand up for accountability for the American taxpayer and how their money is being spent and where.”
The continuing resolution will also include humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan, the source told Reuters.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-09-26 15:25:082022-09-26 15:29:58REPORT: Congress Stuffs $12 Billion In Ukraine Aid Into Government Funding Bill
Like Obama, Biden has dragged us through international humiliations to weaken us.
Putin invaded Ukraine under Obama in Feb 2014 and Biden in Feb 2022.
The invasions eight years apart to the month are not a coincidence. Both times Vladimir Putin was facing a lame duck Democrat who had just flinched away from a military engagement.
Each time Putin smelled weakness and he struck.
Obama, after declaring a red line in Syria, had panicked and backed away in 2013. He then cheered on Ukrainian protests against a pro-Russian regime in Kiev and Moscow responded by calling his bluff and seizing Crimea. Afterward, Obama called Putin to warn him that Russia’s actions were in “violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty” and that “in coordination with our European partners, we are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions.”
Those “sanctions” consisted of buying twice as much Russian oil in Jan 2015 as in Feb 2014.
The latest Russian invasion followed the Fall of Kabul and the pathetic spectacle of American forces abandoning their own citizens to Taliban terror which helped make Biden a lame duck.
Would we be watching a war in Ukraine if not for Biden’s disgrace in Afghanistan?
Apart from the questions of what we should have done in Afghanistan or Syria is the issue of basic national credibility. Nations can do smart or stupid things abroad, but the one thing they can’t afford is not to be taken seriously. When the president of the United States says something, the world should sit up and take notice, instead of yawn and change the channel.
Putin is, despite the claims from the administration and its media, a rational actor. Like every tyrant he sees no value in rhetoric except as assertions of strength or admissions of weakness.
Biden, like his former boss, keeps insulting and threatening Putin not from a position of strength, but as an admission of weakness. Biden calls for regime change and war crimes trials for Putin, and then slow walks shipments of weapons and refuses to transfer planes to Ukraine.
The message is the same as when Obama condemned Putin’s invasion of Crimea and then refused to provide meaningful armaments to Ukraine while slow walking shipments of boots.
Putin understands the message the same way a big dog understands when a little dog yaps.
Moscow isn’t paying attention to what Washington D.C. says, but what it does. And the real message from Biden is that he’s afraid of Putin, but looking to cover it up with tough talk.
Biden wants all the political benefits of siding with Ukraine, with none of the military risks. Like Obama, he’s trying to prop up an international order centered around the United States while pretending that it can be done through diplomacy and sanctions without the use of force.
The real world doesn’t work that way.
The false choice between globalism and isolationism is just that. Foreign policy is not an ideology, it’s a balance. When nations embrace ideological foreign policies, they court disaster. Putin’s disaster in Ukraine put ideology ahead of strategy, embracing wishful thinking that ignored the realities of the battlefield and the cost of war. That’s something we know about.
But whatever damage Putin inflicts on Russia in Ukraine, Biden has inflicted more on us.
Beyond the economic pain, Biden has once again wrecked America’s credibility, making public commitments and private disavowals, putting our honor on the line for a war he has no intention of winning or even getting involved in. Putin understands that even a partial victory in Ukraine means not just a defeat for that country, but for the United States and Europe as paper tigers.
And Moscow may be willing to sacrifice ten or twenty thousand men for that strategic objective.
Biden has put America in the terrible position of having committed to a war that only a third party can win. And he has no intention of properly arming that third party to win on the battlefield.
What that really means is that Biden and his administration have set up America to lose.
Like Obama, the Biden administration has dragged us through a series of international humiliations that appear calculated to weaken us as a world power and wipe out our credibility.
Biden has clumsily deployed sanctions and weapons shipments behind Putin’s strategic schedule, playing catch up with the pace of events while letting Russia take the lead. That hasn’t made the war any better or safer, instead it’s become more agonizing for everyone.
If Russia is defeated after all, Biden will claim all the credit and deserve none of it.
The administration’s fearful dithering gave Putin the impression that he could quickly take Ukraine and win. After giving Putin permission for a “minor incursion” as his version of Obama’s red line, Biden was confronted with a full invasion and after a month still hasn’t made it clear to either Russia or Ukraine, or any of our allies, what they can expect America to do about it.
These mixed signals convinced both sides that they can still win and have prolonged the war.
If Biden believes that it’s in our national interest that Russia be defeated, then he should say it and act like it, instead of empty babble about who should run Moscow, something he has no say in, or even more hollow threats of war crimes trials. If he wants to arm Ukraine, then he should do it properly or stop altogether because a halfway approach will just kill more people.
Washington D.C. can reduce Ukraine, like Boko Haram and ISIS, to a hashtag war, but China and Iran are watching and drawing their lessons from what is happening. And if we treat Taiwan and the Middle East, our tech and energy regional lifelines, as disposable, there will come a war that we will have to fight. And heaven help us if we try to fight it with hashtags and sanctions.
Strong nations make it clear what they will and won’t fight for. And they don’t send mixed signals that only communicate weakness. Nor do they talk about how fearful they are of a fight.
That doesn’t mean that foreign wars are a good idea or should be embraced as a policy.
But the best way to avoid foreign wars is by having meaningful red lines and doctrines that clearly lay out national interests, and by viewing war as a choice made from a position of strength, not the catastrophic conclusion to a series of inept entanglements that alternately convince our enemies we won’t fight and that they have nothing to worry about even if we do.
Instead Biden has continued the failed policy of ambiguous global commitments under the guise of international law and the even more implausible values of the international community that have no clear red lines for engagement or disengagement. In Ukraine, Biden, like Obama, is hiding behind the Europeans, who are hiding behind us, for a global show of cowardice.
Vladimir Putin understands that wars are something you win, while the D.C. establishment doesn’t fight wars, but commits American forces to implementing multilateral values.
That’s why we never win. If you don’t fight a war, how can you possibly win one?
Putin understands why he’s in Ukraine. Do we? What are our national interests there or anywhere? How does our employment of military force make us safer, stronger, or wealthier? Are we involved to keep energy and bread prices low, or to avoid a future war on worse terms?
These are basic questions and the failure to answer them sets us up for defeat every time.
Two Democrat administrations have sent a message to our allies, enemies, and countries wondering which of these they might want to be that the American era has come to an end.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-04-09 16:44:182022-04-09 16:44:18Biden’s Weakness on the Ukraine-Russia War is a Threat to America
The memory of a fierce regent of old can inspire Ukrainians today in the face of war.
The past few days have seen a spate of videos showing Ukrainians and their president defying an onslaught of Russian aggression. Who could fail to be moved by the video of a Ukrainian woman confronting an armed and jackbooted soldier, telling him to put sunflower seeds in his pockets so at least sunflowers will grow where he dies.
Or President Zelensky’s heroic selfies from Kyiv’s front line, which inspire far more widely than just among his countrymen?
Stalwart Princess
Ukrainians are used to adversity, and they have a special medieval role model who personifies their bravery in the face of hardship. The Mongol horde destroyed her tomb in Kyiv in 1240, but a Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral dedicated to her was consecrated there as recently as 2010.
Olga of Kyiv, consort of Igor, second ruler of the Rurikid dynasty, is today recognised as one of Eastern Orthodoxy’s greatest saints. A fierce and proud woman who protected her young son and avenged her husband’s death, she was a crucial figure in the consolidation of the medieval kingdom of Kyivan Rus’ as a political entity and in its peoples’ conversion to Christianity.
Olga was born to Viking parents in Pskov, northern Russia, around the turn of the 10th century. She married Prince Igor young and may have been only 20 when the Drevlians, a neighbouring tribe, rose up against his rule and murdered him.
The Byzantine chronicler Leo the Deacon gives gruesome details of Igor’s killing: he was tied to two tree trunks which were then released so his body was split in two. Leo’s account may have been embellished (the ancient historian Diodorus of Sicily in fact tells a similar tale), but Igor’s death still left his wife and three-year-old son alone and potentially helpless in a particularly dangerous and brutal corner of the medieval world.
Burying her enemies
Olga’s legend was born of her actions in the weeks and months that followed. The Drevlians sent her emissaries to suggest she marry their leader Prince Mal. The Primary Chronicle, an 11th-century manuscript which is our main source for what follows, records Olga as greeting them deceptively, apparently to bide for time.
The account may be part-fictitious or at least exaggerated. Yet that is not the point: in medieval hagiography, it is the morality of the tale that matters most.
“Your proposal is pleasing to me”, Olga told her interlocutors. “Indeed, my husband cannot rise again from the dead. But I desire to honour you tomorrow in the presence of my people. Return now to your boat, and remain there… I shall send for you on the morrow.”
The hubristic Drevlian delegation took her at her word gleefully. But what they did not know was that she had arranged for a trench to be dug, into which they and their boat were flung.
They were buried alive.
Olga summoned a second Drevlian embassy before the rest of the tribe had had time to learn of the first one’s fate. When they arrived, she commanded her people to draw a bath for them.
The Drevlians then entered the bathhouse, but Olga ordered the doors to be bolted and the building set ablaze.
For a third reprisal, Olga went to the place where the Drevlians had killed her husband, telling those present she wished to hold a funeral feast to commemorate him. Once the Drevlians were drunk and incapacitated, she had her men massacre them.
Finally, she laid siege to the Drevlians’ base at Iskorosten (the modern-day Ukraine city of Korosten). She tricked those inside the city with an offer of peace: all they had to give up were three pigeons and three sparrows from each house.
But when Olga had the birds in her possession, she had her men tie a sulphurous cloth to one of each one’s legs. The birds flew back to their nests for the night and the sulphur set every building on fire simultaneously.
Olga ordered her soldiers to catch everyone who fled the burning city so they could be extirpated or taken into slavery.
Her revenge for her husband’s death was at last complete.
Channelling Saint Olga’s spirit
Olga lived a further 25 years, residing in her son’s capital of Kyiv. She was instrumental in persuading him not to abandon the Ukrainian lands for “better prospects” further south on the Danube’s bank. Her grandson, Volodymyr the Great (c. 958-1015), then expanded the kingdom into what is now seen as the first Russian principality (which Vladimir Putin now views as the forerunner of the imperial Russian state).
Volodymyr too is acknowledged as a saint for his role in completing the Christianisation which Olga had started.
Olga’s Mad Max-style ventures ought to grate with us a bit today: the modern world really shouldn’t be a site of such bloodshed. That is why Russia’s sudden large-scale invasion into a peaceful country strike us as so shocking.
Yet Olga’s memory can clearly still provide an important focal point for Ukrainian resolve.
The Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches recognise her with the venerable and extraordinary title “Isapóstolos”: Equal to the Apostles. She and Kyiv’s patron saint, St Michael the Archangel, remain key figures of intercession among those who need comfort in an hour of greatest need.
And Olga’s Christian faith, acquired during a visit to Byzantium late in life, can sustain others now just as it sustained her after her own tribulations.This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Miles Pattenden is Senior Research Fellow in Medieval and Early Modern Studies at the Australian Catholic University, and the Co-Editor of The Journal of Religious History. He specialises in the history… More by Miles Pattenden
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-03-07 08:21:112022-03-07 08:32:40Saint Olga of Kyiv: Defiance and Vengeance
President Joe Biden took a late-night call from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday to discuss reported fighting between military forces near a nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
Ukraine’s state emergency service said Friday that a fire erupted at a training facility outside a nuclear power plant amid heavy fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces, Reuters reported. Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba had claimed on Twitter that the Zaporizhzhia plant could cause a disaster “10 times larger than Chernobyl,” though other reports have suggested the threat is less severe.
Ukrainian officials reportedly said the Zaporizhzhia plant had been secured after the fighting broke out.
The White House confirmed Biden discussed the situation in his call with Zelenskyy. The two leaders urged Russia to stop “military activities” near the plant and allow local firefighters to contain the flames.
Russian army is firing from all sides upon Zaporizhzhia NPP, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. Fire has already broke out. If it blows up, it will be 10 times larger than Chornobyl! Russians must IMMEDIATELY cease the fire, allow firefighters, establish a security zone!
Fox News reporter Trey Yingst stated the threat of a Chernobyl-style disaster has been overblown, however.
Two items of note. I’ve seen no evidence to support reports of increased radiation levels. A meltdown does not mean anything with “blow up” 10x the size of Chernobyl, as the Ukrainian Foreign Minister warned. Even a meltdown is not the most likely scenario here.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced late Thursday that it was aware of reports of shelling at the plant and is in contact with Ukrainian authorities.
#Ukraine: IAEA is aware of reports of shelling at #Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), in contact with Ukrainian authorities about situation.
— IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency (@iaeaorg) March 4, 2022
#Ukraine tells IAEA that fire at site of #Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has not affected “essential” equipment, plant personnel taking mitigatory actions.
— IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency (@iaeaorg) March 4, 2022
Ukraine officials later told the IAEA that the fire “has not affected ‘essential’ equipment” and that “plant personnel” were “taking mitigatory actions,” according to a tweet.
Ukraine’s nuclear regulator informed IAEA that there is “no change reported in radiation levels at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant site,” the organization tweeted early Friday.
This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.
Former President Donald Trump weighed in on Russia’s Ukraine aggression ahead of President Joe Biden addressing the country on the same issue Tuesday, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin would have never took such an action during Trump’s presidency.
Trump’s statement came hours before Biden’s scheduled speech Tuesday afternoon addressing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin took the step of officially recognizing two separatist-controlled territories in eastern Ukraine as independent states Monday, and then ordered “peacekeeper” troops into the contested regions. Trump argued that Putin only made the advance because he believes Biden’s economic response will be “weak.”
“If properly handled, there was absolutely no reason that the situation currently happening in Ukraine should have happened at all. I know Vladimir Putin very well, and he would have never done during the Trump Administration what he is doing now,” Trump said. “The weak sanctions are insignificant relative to taking over a country and a massive piece of strategically located land. Now it has begun, oil prices are going higher and higher, and Putin is not only getting what he always wanted, but getting, because of the oil and gas surge, richer and richer.”
“What a mess our Country is in,” he added.
Biden has vowed severe economic consequences for Russia should Putin move forward with an invasion, but some analysts argue Putin orchestrated his move to test the U.S. and NATO’s definitions of “invasion.”
“Putin has choreographed this with the hope that we and the Europeans will debate whether this is an ‘invasion’ or not,” former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin stated Monday. “And hoping that throws us enough off balance that he will pay a minimal price for this first slice of salami.”
While Germany has already taken the step of halting the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the U.S. has yet to unleash its threatened sanctions. Biden is set to deliver an update on the Ukraine conflict later Tuesday, however. The White House has not provided details as to what he will be announcing.
Putin also took the step of asking Russian lawmakers Tuesday to authorize him to use force outside of Russia, a formality given Putin’s control over the country. The lawmakers granted his request within hours. The authorization is yet another sign that Putin may plan to escalate the conflict with Ukraine beyond even the deployment of “peacekeeper” troops.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-02-23 05:53:172022-02-23 05:54:35‘What A Mess’: Trump Weighs In On Ukraine Conflict Ahead Of Biden Speech
The U.S. State Department has ordered its personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine to evacuate to Poland under threat of a Russian invasion, the U.S. announced Monday.
The U.S. had already evacuated most of its diplomats from the embassy in the capital city of Kyiv, and the few diplomats who remained moved to the city of Lviv in western Ukraine. The small contingent of diplomats still in Kyiv is now evacuating fully.
“For security reasons, Department of State personnel currently in Lviv will spend the night in Poland,” The State Department said in a statement, according to Bloomberg.
The move comes just hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a fiery speech in which he officially recognized two separatist groups in eastern Ukraine as independent states. The separatist groups currently lay claim to land under the control of the Ukrainian government, leading some to believe Putin’s speech was a prelude to war.
Ukraine is “an inherent part of our history, culture, spiritual space. They are our comrades, relatives, not only colleagues, friends, but also our family, people we have blood and family ties with,” Putin said. He went on to argue that the Ukrainian government is a puppet of the U.S. Putin also painted Ukraine as a security threat to Russia, so long as it remained close allies with NATO and the U.S.
Russia has amassed roughly 150,000 troops along Ukraine’s borders in recent months, according to U.S. intelligence. President Joe Biden’s administration has repeatedly argued that Putin will rely on a “false flag” or some other pretense to invade Ukraine. Some observers have argued that Putin’s complaints about Kyiv’s alleged “military action” are just such a pretense.
And Putin now signs the LNR and DNR recognition statements with leaders of both regions
Russia has been laying the ground for military action against Ukraine since 2014.
Despite suggestions to the contrary from the Kremlin, Ukraine remains surrounded by Russian troops, both along its long border with Russia and from within occupied Crimea. The Russian Federation has deployed land, air and naval forces that give the Kremlin a range of possibilities should it seek to initiate military action.
Russia has been laying the ground for military action against Ukraine since 2014, when it seized Crimea and thereby gained a more substantial military foothold to the south. Meanwhile, the ongoing war in Ukraine’s Donbas region allowed Russian security and intelligence units to continue to gauge Ukrainian military and paramilitary operations.
In spring 2021, the Russian Federation ramped up actions against Ukraine, stopping short of actual war. It launched cyber attacks and misinformation campaigns as well as disrupting the energy supply. The Ukrainian Security Service has identified operational and sleeper units from Russia’s Federal Security Service, Foreign Intelligence Service, Military Intelligence and Special Forces operating within its borders.
If military action does occur, there are three likely scenarios for how it would play out.
Scenario 1: decapitation
The first is the decapitation approach. Russian military and security forces would seek to remove the current government and state powers in order to insert replace them with people more favourable to (and owned by) Moscow. Perhaps surprisingly, this would entail keeping on some people who are already working in the Ukrainian state. There are figures who have shown sympathies for and have worked with the Russian Federation.
This scenario would probably entail security and intelligence units on the ground in Ukraine as well as units from the military exercise currently being conducted in Belarus. The greatest concern for Russia in this scenario would be how the Ukrainian military and police would respond. There may also be a significant public backlash against a change of government led from Moscow.
Scenario 2: war in the east
The second possibility is the eastern war approach. Here, Russian forces would seek to reinforce the breakaway regions in the Donbas with arms, supplies and intelligence. These areas would then be used as a springboard to take more Ukrainian territory to more fully cover those areas where ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians are located.
Such a manoeuvre could take Russian troops as far as the Dnieper river, which splits the country into east and west. It could also stretch across the coast of the Black Sea all the way to the Moldova border (where another Russian reinforced breakaway region is located).
Such an operation would be supported by military forces stationed in and around the Russian region of Rostov-on-Don, to the east of Ukraine, forces to the south stationed in Crimea and also probably Russian army motor and rifle battalions stationed in the breakaway Transnistria in Moldova.
Scenario 3: full invasion
The final possibility is the full invasion approach. All of those forces mentioned thus far as well as air units located further north would seek to defeat Ukraine militarily. They would use recent experience in combat operations in Syria to defeat any popular insurgency against Russian forces.
This approach would be devastating for the people of Ukraine. Large-scale death tolls would be expected across the Ukrainian military and police forces as well as among local populations adjacent to battles. There would be major flows of refugees to the west of Ukraine and into the bordering states of Poland, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. Such a refugee crisis could be the largest in Europe since the second world war.
Daunting repercussions
It’s important to note that these approaches are not mutually exclusive. They could even occur sequentially should the Kremlin be unsatisfied with the changes it finds in Ukraine or the west.
Regardless of what Russia does, other countries with unsettled disputes over breakaway territories, such as Moldova with Transnistria and Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, will be watching events nervously. A victory in Ukraine for Russia might well fuel actions against these countries in the future. And if the west fails to respond robustly, even countries like Estonia and Latvia could face threats in the future.
Russia’s military threat against Ukraine has put the west in a difficult position. It has to decide how to deal with a belligerent Russia and how far it should expand its membership to, say, Ukraine or Georgia and beyond. Nor are these predicaments helped by the fact that the United States is more concerned with China, the South China Sea and the status of Taiwan these days than the fate of eastern Europe.
What’s more, the very future of NATO may be on the line if it cannot have a credible response to Ukraine through diplomacy, military assistance and maybe even military response. Such a loss of credibility would be a major win for Russia, which sees NATO as a threat to its own national security and global strategy to regain power. In other words, the significance of the situation in Ukraine cannot be underestimated.
David Galbreath is Professor of International Security at the University of Bath, in the UK. His current research is on military transformation, the role of science and technology in defence and security,… More by David J. Galbreath
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-02-21 06:26:142022-02-21 06:28:53Ukraine: what would a Russian invasion actually look like? These are the three most likely scenarios
