Touting him as having the best foreign policy in 40 years. He's been president for 1 year. In that time he's seen an invasion of a semi ally and seems to have partially alienated Saudi Arabia, a more important ally, to the point they are not taking his calls and seem to be moving closer to China. They also seem to be alienating India. Now maybe this is all temporary and when the dust settles, you will be correct. But that remains to be seen. He's successfully galvanized Europe, although, again, time will tell. These sanctions are going to put a lot of stress on the Europeans. We will see how they hold up.
That sounds suspiciously like "4D chess" to me. The White House has already said that wasn't a part of his prepared remarks. And considering Biden's bad habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, I wouldn't be so sure anything is clear about what Joe has said this week.
This whole tightrope over the last month has been a game of 4D chess in which we only see the surface. It hasn't been checkers.
All I am saying is the guy has basically stuck his foot in his mouth every day during this trip. I don't think he's doing it on purpose as some sort of grand strategy. I think it's far more likely that he's just running his mouth, as he's made a habit of doing his whole career. The difference being that he's the President now, and his words carry a lot more weight.
I don't know if I'd say biden has galvanised Europe. I'd say Putin and/or Zelenskyy/plight of Ukraine has galvanised NATO
We will agree to disagree here as I suspect this is a different discussion and one I don't care to get into.
That's fair to say.
I wasn't having a go or anything, your points are fair I thought, just wanted to point that out
I mean, it is what it is. This week he implied the US would respond to a chemical weapons attack with its own chemical weapons. The White House had to walk that back. I'm assuming the President understands what "respond in kind" means, but I guess that could be attributed to bad phrasing.
I wouldn't put that on Biden. Zelensky deserves way more credit: if he had just fled the country as expected Europe and Biden would have done nothing. No one believed Putin was going to invade.
Yup, that's what I was saying.
I'm sort of indifferent on Biden's wartime strategy like if he makes this kind of gaffe I think the Russian diplomacy organ will believe it when the WH walks it back whereas certain other former politicians may have gotten into a dick measuring nuclear brinkmanship rhetoric contest at worst or simply made excuses for Putin due to a weird fawning admiration for him. Biden's basically done what he was elected to do as a lukewarm tepid president. His wartime leadership is neither good nor bad: he's just coasting along reacting to events and quietly providing bare minimum support and that's probably what america needs right now.
The only major problem with Biden (from my very uneducated in US politics position), is that he seems very, very old sometimes when on TV, like he's been wheeled out to say something to the cameras, and even that doesn't go to plan half the time, fumbling words, looking half awake, unaware of surroundings.
If regime change results from this gaffe I'll be the first to praise it as a brilliant strategy otherwise it's just platitudes. The Russian people need to rise up with the support of like half the invasion force in Ukraine converting to military defectors: simply protesting gets them nowhere.
Yep, the US was beating the drum for months about invasion, meanwhile many here and aboard seemingly were unconvinced. For a bit even Ukraine seemingly was not taking it seriously as they sort of implied the US were being warmongers.
Really? You think Biden meant to say we would respond to a Russian chemical weapons attack "in kind". As in we would respond to chemical weapons with chemical weapons? I sincerely doubt that and I think you're using some pretty rose colored glasses if you don't. I don't want this to stray from the Ukraine topic too much, so I'll steer clear from going back through Joe's career. Let's just say your perspective on his resume to this point is very much up for debate.
The US President just said today he wants Putin regime change in Russia. Then his people walked it back. I would say that's relevant and worth discussing. Maybe you disagree.Back on the US politics again then, lads
The discussion is more about how seriously to take this. Is it deliberate? Does it have broader implications? There is no way to discuss it without discussing Biden'a political record because that's how you put the comments into context. The question is whether he is saying these things strategically or whether they are misstatements.
You are right that we just aren't going to see his comments and the repeated, subsequent clean up the same way. That's all right though. Whether this is strategic or not, how it plays out will become clear in time.
He said a thing that the Russian government will find incredibly inflammatory. If that government ends up remaining power, comments like that will make deescalation more difficult. Also, regime changes are messy and unpredictable. This is particularly true with regards to a country loaded with nuclear weapons. It's not something to talk about lightly. I think it was dumb when Lindsey Graham said pretty much the same thing two weeks ago.
When Biden does something, half of the US population will think that he's an incompetent senile idiot, and half of the US population will think that he's savvy and great and only 50% senile. The details on the event in question won't change that outcome much.
Fair enough.
Putin also by many accounts has a sort of PTSD after living through the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union shortly thereafter calling for and getting no support from Moscow hearing "Moscow is silent" on the other line. He also reportedly obsessively watched the death videos of his "friend" Gaddafi being led around the streets like a bloodied dog and then being shot in the head for hours on end. He's not going quietly with that many nukes. Hell he'd probably Death Star resistant cities in Russia out of existence with his own nukes before willingly leaving office. Don't know if he'd nuke NATO if a legit civil war broke out in his country but he'd definitely use them to pacify his own people.
God let's hope not. I'm mostly of the opinion it would be better to wait until he died while trying to mitigate his impact, but I have no idea what is likely to come next. The guy is like 72 years old and *rumored* to have health problems. I think regime change in Russia is just so fraught with unintended consequences that it's not a good idea. Then again, I don't know enough to feel strongly about it. I just have concerns that may or may not be unfounded.
Deescalation? Are you for real? There should not be any deescalation with Russia unless Russia has significant changes. How do you deescalate when Russia is literally trying to expand?
You have to realize that Putin is just small part of the problem. Overwhelming majority of Russians have hated West for the past decade. Nothing will change unless Russian economy fails.
well the economy will fail, thats a given
I just want to wear jams and trade garbage pail kids cards again.
Does he has enough Brain to know what is he going to read or are you saying he just parrots you know like a parrot...
Jesus ..... What a ridiculous fucking statement...
