7 મે, 2025
"I just don't understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to decide he's going to take significant portions of land that aren't his, that that's going to satisfy him. I don't quite understand."
Said Joe Biden, quoted in "Five takeaways from Biden's BBC interview" (BBC).
પોસ્ટ્સ
75 ટિપ્પણીઓ:
Old man screams at clouds.
LOL. Reporters want 'pinions from old crook who ruined the USA... and presided over many wars.
What's the end game, Joe? Are we going to commit to driving on to Moscow? Are we going to fight to the last Ukrainian to take Crimea? Are we committing US troops?
Oh sure…NOW he’s capable of sittinggor an(highly edited) interview…
except that land has been contested for 300 years, much like say Northern Ireland, an interest of our special relationship
He's still getting Ukrainian money, I see.
Thus confirming that he and Obama didn't know what they were doing when Putin took southern Ukraine in 2014. When you let them grab your southern territories and they get away unscathed then they get the idea they can get away with it again. That's what happens Joe. And then it's that much harder to correct that behavior later, especially if you cancel the consequences that your Orange predecessor had set in motion, and say "a little incursion is ok" and then slow-walk all the arms Congress appropriates but rush the cash out the door via USAID.
Your actions and inactions have consequences, Joe.
we do know that Putin engaged in this exercise during Obama and Biden's terms,
Well, there was a time the US military was a credible threat to dictators and thugs, but folks like Barack Obama and Joseph Biden hollowed out our military and now we’re not a regarded as much of a threat anymore. So waddya gonna do?
Joe Biden.. How can we miss him, if he won't go away?
ah the BBC shows itself to be quite useless, as do most of their broadsheets,
"rehajm said...
Oh sure…NOW he’s capable of sittinggor an(highly edited) interview…"
That's right. If the BBC were credible, they'd tell us about that. It's no longer a secret that Biden is diminished.
The BBC could tell us how much time they spent with Biden, and how he performed. We don't need to see the unedited video if it makes Biden look like a buffoon, but it would be surprising news if Biden could have a coherent and substantive conversation for an hour.
War, how does it work?
my takeaways..
it was a six minute interview (well, 5:59)..
i counted 33 cuts in those 6 minutes.
The interviewer did most of the talking.
Joe lost his way, and said: "well, anyway.."
at Least Once in those 6 edited minutes.
I wonder how LONG the interview took to film?
(including ice cream breaks and naps)
I have read that Starmer contacted some of the other large, Westerner European countries trying to raise a 64,000 army to send into Ukraine. Tie is not 64,000 Brits, it was Britain, France, Germany, and I’m not sure who else. At the end they realized that they might be able to scrape together 25,000.
Regardless of feelings about Biden, I think the question deserves an answer: do you expect Putin to be satisfied with the four oblasts? If so, what gives you that confidence? If not, how should the US respond if he moves on to annexing all of Ukraine? Or attacks a NATO member?
It’s a perfectly fair response to say that you do expect Putin will be satisfied. Maybe you think there was always something different about the eastern oblasts and Crimea (percentage of Russian speakers, for example). Maybe you think Putin has learned a lesson from the costs of war since 2022.
It’s also a perfectly fair response to say you don’t think Putin will stop here. Maybe you think the US shouldn’t care whether Russia annexes Ukraine in toto. Maybe you think the US should be prepared to commit troops but only if Russia agrees to a peace deal and then violates it. Again, many possibilities.
I do think, however, that it would help to articulate a position or at least recognize that Biden’s objection reflects a real policy challenge. Personally, I don’t believe Putin will be satisfied; I do believe that some form of military protection will be required. We can argue about how that burden ought to be allocated between Europe and the US. But we’re better off confronting the reality with which we’re stuck in the present than just complaining about Obama’s and Biden’s bad choices in the past.
the idea of NATO expansion is not popular in Russia, in so far as it was pushed when the relatively quiescent, Sverdlovsk mujik Yeltsin was nominally in Charge, experts debate how out of it, he was as with Biden,
The land in question isn't ours to "give" or "allow" anyone to have.
Not our circus. Not our monkeys.
Hahaha. Just glancing at this headline I assumed Biden was calling Trump a thug for trying to take Greenland. It's like a Mad Lib.
No Netanyahu tag, annie? ;-)
New Yorker - most of your analysis is correct but you need to go that extra step on " I do believe that some form of military protection will be required. "
Besides the amount of troops that that would require what would be their mandate? If Russia breaks the conditions of the truce/cease fire is this force there to keep Russia from advancing any further? If the protection force is attacked what are the RoE and what's the consequences of drawing the US and/or the EU into an actual shooting war with Russia.
At the end of over 3 years of very bloody and expensive fighting (unlike in 2014) I think that if Putin makes peace, there's a very good chance that there will be peace. Restarting will be politically disastrous and Finland showed, following the Winter War, that if you fight back hard enough the Russians won't go again. I must say that because Obama and Biden did nothing after 2014, Putin expected something similar in 2022.
Joe Biden. Joe Biden. Hmmmmm. I vaguely recall that name, but I just can't place it. Was he a silent movie star or something? So very, very long ago........
Of course, they didn't ask him what the hell his immigration policy was supposed to be about or why he opened the doors to the migrant flood. It's the BBC, and they don't even care about what's happening to their own country, much less ours.
•
I don't know if Putin is going to be satisfied with four oblasts or if he's going to be satisfied with less than four oblasts or want more. I don't know if he's bent on gobbling up all of Ukraine. Is that real or just a Western nightmare? The point is more that Russia isn't going to be in any condition to fight another war now or for the rest of the decade. If peace returns, the people aren't going to put up with starting another war. And where will Putin be in five or ten years?
•
The term "appeasement" gets kicked around a lot in American politics
Does it? In this century? More than in Britain? I haven't heard it that much.
yes the warplan would have gotten anyone dismissed from Frunze academy, their top strategic school, comparable to Ft Leavenworth,
now the mindset of the siloviki, Putins allies and likely successors cannot be ignored, of course the corporate press cannot think that far ahead,
When you let them grab your southern territories and they get away unscathed then they get the idea they can get away with it again.
When you're a Tsar they let you grab them by the Crimea.
Same here, Kate. LOL.
Narcisco wrote: "Ah the BBC shows itself to be quite useless ..."
You won't know this, but BBC America is headed in the United States by Courtney Subramanian. She's the wife of Davey Quinn. He's the son of Pat Quinn, former Democrat Governor of Illinois.
She was the reporter caught in the famous photo of Joe Biden getting pre-screened questions and answers from "journalists" in the Rose Garden of the White House.
The BBC is very, very useful.
To the Democrats.
Joe Biden doesn't sit down with ANY journalist who isn't on his team and paid to support him. And he has a gaggle of them to choose from.
I suspect Biden says “I don’t quite understand “ about pretty much everything these days.
So Biden is against Isreal taking Gaza and land on the West Bank. My, that is surprising!
"Joe.. Joe...Family Feud's on!"
Me three, Kate! "Mad Lib" - well done!
A lot of the eastern Ukraine has been Russian-speaking from time immemorial, and was in fact part of Soviet Russia within living memory. The trouble was started by other dictators (Lenin and Stalin) who meddled with borders for their own political purposes, and the invasion is widely perceived in Russia and Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine as righting a historic wrong.
You'd think the crowd that cares so much about redressing the grievances of the Palestinians against the Israelis could spare a thought for the similar, contemporaneous oppression of another ethnic minority in the Ukraine.
Can we take a collection and pay Joe Biden to shut up and go away? Reducing a deadly war that involves Russian security, protection of a minority, and a long standing border dispute to a dumb 12 y/o "We cant reward a dictator for aggression" is moronic.
Would Joe Biden send his Grandkid to die in Ukraine because "We cant reward aggression". LOL - of course not. That's for OTHER people. Just more blather from the corrupt, scumbag.
Miss Lindsey let the cat out of the bag, when he said the real purpose of the war, the reason we're giving Dictator Zelensky, hundreds of $Billions is to "Kill Ruskiees". Go find the clip of him chortling with glee over all the men dying.
The Ghouls in DC hate Trump because he's not one them. He actually seems to dislike war. Just like he seems to be actually upset about illegals coming into the USA and committing murder and rape.
People like biden don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. If it was required by "party line" Biden would've sent thousands of americans to die without a 2nd thought, and enjoyed his ride on the beach and an ice cream cone.
Biden all but invited the Russian invasion when he said right beforehand that it would only be a "limited incursion."
Joe supports the Western Ukrainians in their efforts to subjugate eastern Ukraine and to kill off as many Yanukovich voters as possible.
The warmongers consistently leave out that all of this was kicked off in 2014 by Nuland and team who overthrew the elected Ukrainian government.
No idea what he was talking about. It’s not worth my time to watch or read. I assume that he was making a slap at Trump but after reading the comments, it sounds like he was talking about Russia? Interesting that he chose to comment on that. While Trump was president, Russia was intimidated from attacking. As soon as Biden became president, he realized what a weak, feckless impotent man he is and attacked. It’s like employees. It is much less expensive to keep them happy than to lose one and have to figure out how to get him back. It is a lot cheaper for us to maintain an army and a will that intimidates everyone else. We have to be a lot more powerful, like a lot more powerful than the next most powerful army to intimidate them. If people think they can beat us, they will take a shot. Not if they think there is no chance. It is much cheaper for us to maintain a powerful army and strong Will than it is to fight. Just like Sun Tzu in the art of war says. Who the heck is this Biden guy that has any right to comment? He is the guy who invited all of this. He is the guy who supplicated before Putin and invited him to attack Ukraine. He is the guy who supplicated before Al-Qaeda and encouraged them to take over. The balls on this guy to comment about anything at all is incredible.
Wasn’t Biden the President that told the thug it was ok if it was just a minor incursion? I think the person that thought Putin would be ok with just one province of Ukraine is Biden. The question is, why did Biden think Putin would be satiated with just a part of Ukraine?
Was SOB Joe, in his mind, talking about Putin or DJT?
Remember when Brzezinsky admitted that we armed, trained, and funded the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan to provoke a Soviet invasion? Then denied it for decades and blamed Soviet aggression? Good times.
Biden selfie-reports on the Slavic Spring.
Biden is not abiding by the Bush 43 pledge not to criticise successor president.
again its more complicated then that, brezinski supported ismail khan (is he still alive) through pakistan, and thats what provoked the soviet invasion
Navigating narcissism.
Rob C,
I agree those are the hard questions, and I don’t have easy answers. I think we can reduce but not eliminate the likelihood of a shooting war by advertising the placement of European/US forces and essentially daring Putin to attack them. For the same reasons that he hasn’t engaged NATO so far, he might not force the issue. But if he did, I think we’d have to retreat. Putin might very well be willing to incur the merely political cost for violating an agreement. That doesn’t mean we should excuse him from paying it altogether.
Biden asks, "What kind of President talks like that?"
Several U.S. Presidents:
Thomas Jefferson: Oversaw the Louisiana Purchase (1803), which nearly doubled the size of the United States.
James Madison: Annexed Spanish West Florida, adding parts of present-day Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
James Monroe: Acquired Florida from Spain through the Adams-Onís Treaty and settled the U.S.-Canada border along the 49th parallel.
John Tyler: Resolved border disputes with the UK, affirming U.S. sovereignty over parts of Maine and Minnesota.
James K. Polk: Presided over the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Territory, and large areas gained from Mexico (including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana), resulting in the largest territorial expansion by any president.
Franklin Pierce: Acquired land from Mexico via the Gadsden Purchase to facilitate a southern railroad.
Andrew Johnson: Oversaw the purchase of Alaska from Russia.
William McKinley: Annexed Hawaii and American Samoa, and gained Puerto Rico and Guam after the Spanish-American War.
Woodrow Wilson: Purchased the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) from Denmark.
Harry S. Truman: Acquired the Northern Mariana Islands after World War II.
These presidents were directly responsible for the significant territorial growth of the United States. What kind of President doesn't know US history?
* That question by Joe was part of his rant about Trump's interest in Greenland, Canada, Panama.
Send Joe & Hunter to the front lines.
None of the usual NPC drones are here to offer support for Biden, which indicates exactly how poorly this is being received. Hey, BBC: in case you forgot, Biden was turfed out by his own party as a sitting "President." Now that he's gone, calling attention to him only reinforces the ability of the Trump DOJ to arrest him as the center of the Biden crime family. If you can give interviews, you can give testimony.
New Yorker said...
I think we can reduce but not eliminate the likelihood of a shooting war by advertising the placement of European/US forces and essentially daring Putin to attack them. For the same reasons that he hasn’t engaged NATO so far, he might not force the issue. But if he did, I think we’d have to retreat.
5/7/25, 1:25 PM
First of all, Russia is already in a shooting war. Secondly, if you want to gamble, bet your own life. President Trump is definitely not putting "tripwire" forces up against the Russians, and the Europeans can't even field a credible force in Odessa. Multiple European nations have already lost a considerable number of mercs in Ukraine. Losing actual soldiers would wholly delegitimize their governments.
The EU boss woman thinks the US should shut up and be their North Korea. The strategic goal for the EU is for the US and Russia to fight it out to the last man. Like the bitch that tries to get her two boyfriends to fight.
Reminds me of how the British and French wanted US troops in WW2 to have all European officers, “you chaps need some proper leadership. Blood tells old boy. “.
Please do not begin a comment "Remember when" (12:52pm) if the following words describe something that never happened, that you know never happened because you've been corrected more than once for saying it before.
One more time, the Taliban were founded in 1994, and could not possibly have inspired the Soviet invasion in 1979. The Mujahideen, who did fight the puppet regime the Soviets had installed the year before, are NOT the Taliban, though some Afghans were members of both at different times. When the Taliban appeared, five years after the Soviet troops left Afghanistan, some Mujahideen supported them, but most opposed them. (Wikipedia names two Mujahideen leaders supporting, five opposing.) And the Taliban - once it actually existed - was supported by Pakistan, while the U.S. supported the Northern Alliance, who fought against them.
doctrev,
That’s a reasonable position, but I think you need to spell out the consequences—that you’d accept Russia annexing all of Ukraine. Is that right? And if so, does that mean you wouldn’t commit US troops unless and until Russia attacks a NATO member? Or not even then?
"A lot of the eastern Ukraine has been Russian-speaking from time immemorial" (11:14am) is false. It only became so because Russia and the USSR suppressed the Ukrainian language, and then the USSR under Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians and moved millions of Russians in as colonists.
In any case, most of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine are ethnic Ukrainians, and Russia has no more right to rule over them because they speak Russian, than England has to rule over the Irish because they speak English. If there are quite a few ethnic Russians on the Ukrainian side of the border, so what? There are millions of ethnic Ukrainians on the Russian side of the border, in Kursk, Belgorod, and the Kuban, and no one in Ukraine claims those areas, because the border has been settled, by treaty, in fact by several treaties, and by the votes of the various oblasts to join Ukraine in 1991. Independent Ukraine in 1920 included all three area, and I think also Rostov, but was (unlike Poland) unable to resist the Bolshevik reconquest.
The only merceneries fighting in Ukraine are fighting for the Russians. Last I heard, foreign soldiers fighting for Ukraine are paid $500 a month, which means they can't possibly be doing it for the money. They're doing it for love of Ukraine, or hatred for Russia (Georgians and Belarusians are two of the largest contingents) or possibly in some cases for love of fighting. Words have meanings. Soldiers can only be called mercenaries if they're motivated by money.
that you’d accept Russia annexing all of Ukraine.
I realize the question isn't directed at me, but don't you think if Russia was going to annex all of Ukraine they would've already done so? And not spent the last three years spinning their wheels making little progress since the initial 'minor' incursion?
Jim,
I think Russia’s objective in 2022 was to seize Kyiv—the focus of the invasion—and remove Zelensky. It’s possible Putin would have been content to install a puppet while annexing the Eastern oblasts outright. So maybe there wouldn’t have been a formal annexation, just the transformation of Western Ukraine into the equivalent of Belarus. In any event, I do think that Russia has been balked by the level of resistance, with heavy US support, which is why they’ve made so little progress over three years.
I take it you think Russia isn’t trying to annex, or otherwise take control of, all Ukraine. You’re inferring that from the fact that Russia hasn’t made an all-out effort—maybe including WMDs. I don’t draw the same inference; I just think Putin has been willing to be very patient.
"A lot of the eastern Ukraine has been Russian-speaking from time immemorial" (11:14am) is false. It only became so because Russia and the USSR suppressed the Ukrainian language, and then the USSR under Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians and moved millions of Russians in as colonists.
This is arrant revisionism. A Russian presence in eastern Ukraine long preceded the Soviets. Kharkiv began to be settled by Russians more than 400 years ago in the late 16th century. Odessa became Russian in the 18th century. The more southerly area previously known as Novorossiya, which includes Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk, began to be settled by Russians in the 18th century too, before which it was sparsely populated by Cossacks.
Funny how the "wall of text" boys with their "Hey X,..." always show up when its Russia-Ukraine. Paid to post? You make the call!
Does anyone know what RCOCEAN II is talking about? Ctrl-F tells me that no one on this thread has written "Hey X" for any value of X.
As for Hassayamper's claim of "arrant revisionism", he cannot deny that Stalin murdered and deported millions of Ukrainians and Tatars, and imported millions of ethnic Russians. Yet Luhansk is still 58-39 Ukrainian, Donetsk 57-38, and Odesa 63-21 (+6% Bulgarian, 5% Moldovan). These areas are in fact majority Ukrainian, and by large margins - 3-1 in the case of Odesa - even if they are also majority Russian-speaking.
Of course there was a "Russian presence in eastern [and western] Ukraine" long before: they conquered the place and ruled it from Moscow with administrators, soldiers, and carpetbaggers. That gives Russia no more right to any of those oblasts than the English have to Ireland. Consent of the governed is what counts, and the people of all oblasts of Ukraine - including Russian-majority Crimea - consented to join Ukraine in 1991. Russia has no legitimate claim to any of it, any more than Ukraine has any claim to the ethnic Ukrainian areas on the Russian side of the border (a point he studiously ignores).
I just don’t understand how we allow a fool, liver-spotted pants-crapper, to decide to sell out his own country, that that’s going to enrich him and his family. I don’t quite understand. Blimey.
New Yorker said...
doctrev,
That’s a reasonable position, but I think you need to spell out the consequences—that you’d accept Russia annexing all of Ukraine. Is that right? And if so, does that mean you wouldn’t commit US troops unless and until Russia attacks a NATO member? Or not even then?
I am willing to send you over there to fight the Russians.
Not the soldiers who signed up to serve our country. They are good men and should be treated as more than cannon fodder.
New Yorker said...
Jim,
I think Russia’s objective in 2022 was to seize Kyiv—the focus of the invasion—and remove Zelensky. It’s possible Putin would have been content to install a puppet while annexing the Eastern oblasts outright.
Putin's mistake was doing it all up front and in public with an army. He also listened to his generals who had their heads up their asses when they overstated the Russian Army's readiness and told him he could take Kyiv/Ukraine with 140,000 soldiers which was just stupid on it's face.
He should have just paid a bunch of agitators to throw a coup like we did in 2014 then armed a bunch of eastern Ukrainians to attack Zelensky's voters like we did when we armed the Azov battalion and sent them after Yanukovich supporters.
By the way our puppet in Ukraine has suspended elections in Ukraine and thrown all of the political opposition and non-state media in jail. To protect "democracy" of course.
Dr Weevil said...
As for Hassayamper's claim of "arrant revisionism", he cannot deny that Stalin murdered and deported millions of Ukrainians and Tatars, and imported millions of ethnic Russians. Yet Luhansk is still 58-39 Ukrainian, Donetsk 57-38, and Odesa 63-21 (+6% Bulgarian, 5% Moldovan). These areas are in fact majority Ukrainian, and by large margins - 3-1 in the case of Odesa - even if they are also majority Russian-speaking.
These regions all voted over 80% for Yanukovich by the way.
Then in 2014 we had Yanukovich tossed out and sent the Azov battalion in to punish his voters.
Then we installed a puppet who would facilitate the laundering of US taxpayer money in aid schemes that our corrupt politicians would split with the Oligarchs in Ukraine.
Our puppet suspended elections of course. Can't stop the graft and kickbacks.
Get your ass over there New Yorker.
"Jim at said...
that you’d accept Russia annexing all of Ukraine.
I realize the question isn't directed at me, but don't you think if Russia was going to annex all of Ukraine they would've already done so? And not spent the last three years spinning their wheels making little progress since the initial 'minor' incursion?"
If you keep in mind the Putin is number one and absolute dictator and two dreams of the glory that was the Soviet Union. NATO is just an excuse. Also keep in mind that for all intents Russia is a third world country.
He did invade in 2014 when he thought he had the manpower and money to succeed. What he didn't count on was the corruption of his own ministers. Something that is also very Russian. Putin has known for a long time that NATO was weak. When Biden gave him permission to openly invade he grabbed to opportunity. Unfortunately the aforementioned corruption and just plain Russian incompetence stymied his plans.
And here's Achilles repeating the same old bullshit that I have refuted over and over. Nothing he writes here is true.
To take a single egregious example, he doesn't seem to realize that Poroshenko and Zelenskyy are two different people, who hate each other. It was Poroshenko who "would facilitate the laundering of US taxpayer money", etc.: all of Hunter Biden's sleazy dealings were under Poroshenko, and he left Ukraine and the board Burisma the very month Zelenskyy was elected. It was Zelenskyy who suspended elections (as Churchill did during World War II, and with more reason), as required by the constitution. And all three of the people most likely to run against Zelenskyy in the next election (Poroshenko, Tymoshenko, and Zaluzhnyi) agree that they cannot be held in the current situation, where millions are trapped in occupied territories, and the Russians bomb every civilian target they can. (Polling places, with their fixed locations and opening hours, are very easy targets.)
There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that Zelenskyy has taken any bribes or kickbacks, or profited in any way from the war. And he's not asking for foreign troops, he just wants to buy weapons and ammunition, especially Patriot missiles to stop the nightly slaughter of civilians, and F-16s and M-1 tanks, of which we have a surplus, to defeat the Russians more quickly on the battlefield. He's offered 50 billion dollars for such aid, and been refused.
Joe Biden explicitly stated that the United States would not fight for Ukraine. As a direct result, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russia is a large country and Ukraine is a small one. The Russian defense budget is larger than the entire economy of Ukraine. Russia's population is 4 times larger.
What did you think was going to happen?
It's Biden's fault. Russia will come out of this with a larger and more capable army, just like in 1945. This is just the first of many crises, and eventually the US will have to commit its own military to defending Europe. Biden should have done that in 2022 instead of Trump or the next president being forced to do it after Ukraine and its army are defeated.
Biden, from Camp Lockdown the Sundown ward at his NJ nursing home, interviewed by BBC. Text of Biden's interview comments reflects a man whose mind wanders beyond "rambling thoughts" and into incoherent. Wonder what the BBC reporter was thinking while listening to this verbal gumbo of a meal-best-served-cold. DNC has heartburn.
ટિપ્પણી પોસ્ટ કરો
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.