RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-reckless-words-ukraine-missteps-risks-us-liz-peek

Joe Biden is a danger to the United States.

As I write this, Vladimir Putin’s propagandists are spinning out videos of President Biden calling for regime change in Russia. They don’t even need to doctor the films.

When Biden said in Poland, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” he handed Putin an excuse to escalate the war in Ukraine. His words sound like a threat, and that is exactly how Russians will hear it.

What difference does it make? Putin has lied to his countrymen, telling them his “special military operation” is aimed at the “demilitarization and denazification” of his western neighbor, and that he is protecting the motherland from the West.

Joe Biden just made his case.

There are two potential ramifications of Biden’s comment. The first is that Biden dealt a serious blow to Putin’s opponents in Russia. It is hard to argue that your leader is lying about the West’s aggressive intentions when the president of the United States backs him up.

The second and more dangerous outcome is this: if Putin uses Biden’s words to justify the use of even more deadly force in Ukraine, like chemical or – God forbid — nuclear weapons, that will be on Russia’s strongman, certainly, but also on Biden. If Putin does take such a step, Americans will insist the U.S. respond, potentially bringing us into direct conflict with Russia.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18361/biden-new-world-order

Clearly, America is not leading the “green” new world order, and Biden seems to have no meaningful plan for how to get us there other than radical disruptions to our lifestyle and a heightened reliance on China.

When it comes to oil and gas, it seems Biden’s new world order would continue his policy of decreasing American energy independence and increasing U.S. reliance on bad-faith state actors — thereby ironically funding their efforts to undermine America in the global order.

What does Biden’s record in the Middle East suggest that the new world order will resemble there? Well, the president is pushing to sign an agreement brokered by Russia, and backed by China, reportedly to remove sanctions on Iran, delist Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the terrorist organization it is, and allow Russia to purchase Iran’s “excess” enriched uranium — perhaps to use against its next “Ukraine”?

Finally, what is Biden’s vision for this new world order with China? The message could not be more mixed. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues its genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, suppressing freedoms in Hong Kong, militarizing at least three of the artificial islands it built in the South China Sea, perfecting hypersonic missiles and “satellite crushers”, threatening Taiwan, and signing new friendship agreements with Russia. Meanwhile the Biden administration was sharing intelligence about Russia with China. Apparently, the administration had some quixotic hope that China would join the U.S. in discouraging Russia from attacking. At the same time, it turns out, China was sharing its intelligence information from the U.S. with Russia. One can only wonder who came up with the crazy idea that the CCP would join with the U.S. in maintaining order and stability in Europe.

Apparently, the administration had some quixotic hope that China would join the U.S. in discouraging Russia from attacking. One can only wonder who came up with the crazy idea that the CCP would join with the U.S. in maintaining order and stability in Europe.

Indeed, Biden’s vision of a new world order led by America looks more and more like a new world of disorder.

So, while it is not clear what Biden meant when he referenced America leading a new world order, his record over the last 15 months suggests it consists of a weakened U.S. economy hamstrung by inflation, war in Europe, unraveling alliances in the Middle East and growing uncertainty in Asia.

If this is the unintended consequence of Biden’s new world order, it is time for him to go back to the drawing board. The world has suffered enough. The time has come for him to recalibrate the global nightmare that his policies have created.

U.S. President Joe Biden recently closed his remarks to the Business Roundtable with a confusing reference to a “new world order.” He stated, according to the White House transcript of his speech:

“It occurs every three or four generations. … [A] time when things are shifting. We’re going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it. And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/poland-biden-wants-be-reagan-hes-still-carter-daniel-greenfield/

When Biden showed up in Poland, the speechwriters dug through Reagan’s old speeches in the hopes of making him sound Reaganesque.

Too bad generations of speechwriters have already been farming that territory for too long. There were a few resonant unoriginal lines in what was otherwise a rambling and repetitive address that more closely resembled the rhythm of a Brezhnev speech.

What made Reagan speeches compelling wasn’t just words, it was the authoritative delivery and the moral authority behind the words. Reagan had built his political career around speaking things that the political elites didn’t want to be uttered: especially when it came to the Cold War. There was bold moral clarity in Reagan labeling the Soviet Union as evil because for so long the liberal elites had resisted stating the obvious. There’s no great moral triumph in pointing out that Putin is bad and that his invasion of Ukraine is wrong. Even few of Russia’s allies are especially enthralled with defending the move.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/no-more-dithering-over-ukraine/

The extraordinary skill, courage and effectiveness of Ukraine’s fighting forces have given the US and NATO an extraordinary opportunity to reestablish military deterrence in Europe and show the Kremlin that unprovoked military aggression will be repelled and ultimately defeated. But President Biden and NATO leaders are dithering. They are simply not acting with the urgency needed to fully support Ukraine’s military.

It’s the same failure they displayed for the year prior to the invasion, when Putin was building up tens of thousands of troops along Ukraine’s border. Even now, the US and NATO are hesitating to provide the full complement of essential weapons to Ukraine, including air-defense systems, MIG fighters and a lot more drones, anti-tank and anti-ship weapons. Those are needed now.

Putin’s threats seem to have deterred Washington and Brussels from providing the weapons Ukraine needs to take back its country. It was certainly prudent for Western powers to resist some Ukrainian demands. A no-fly zone, which Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly sought, is too dangerous because it could lead to lethal encounters between NATO and Russian pilots. That, in turn, would risk escalation between nuclear powers. But if NATO is not going to shoot down Russian planes itself, why not give the Ukrainians the weapons to defend their own skies?

https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/did-biden-just-escalate-in-ukraine/

On Friday, reports began emanating from Russia’s military command that they were changing the objectives of what many Western analysts claim has been Moscow’s flagging invasion of Ukraine.

Whether or not the West’s instant claims that Russia had failed at the outset of its illegal invasion of its proto-democratic neighbor Ukraine, the fact remained that Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, was clearly under political pressure to succeed in Ukraine as quickly as possible.

In fact, earlier last week, it was reported that Putin had ordered his military to have the unpopular war wrapped up by May 9 – just 11 weeks after the massive invasion began – and the anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War.

Meanwhile other analysts, such as this author, have fretted that the longer the conflict wore on inconclusively, the more likely the Kremlin was to order unconventional escalation involving cyberspace attacks on the United States, potential tactical nuclear strikes on NATO supply depots in Poland, and the use of chemical or biological weapons against targets of opportunity in Ukraine.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-says-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-in-speech-on-ukraine/

President Biden said Russian president Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” in a speech on the invasion of Ukraine on Saturday.

“Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. For free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness,” Biden said at the end of a speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland. They “have a different future, a brighter future, rooted in democracy and principle, hope and light, of decency and dignity and freedom and possibilities.”

Then Biden added, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

A White House official issued a comment minutes later saying that Biden was not calling for regime change.

“The President’s point was Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” the official said.

Earlier in the address, Biden repeated a pledge to defend NATO allies. While Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance, Poland and the Baltic states on Russia’s border are members.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/we_need_to_build_an_exit_ramp_from_ukraine_for_putin.html

The horrors we see daily on our television screens of damage to Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities are bad enough, but the prospect of escalation into a nuclear conflict now seems within the realm of possibility.  That would make the damaged cities and millions of refugees that upset us today seem like the good old days if nukes start flying between two superpowers, each with thousands of warheads in inventory.  Making sure that doesn’t happen should be the top priority of everyone at the NATO Summit Thursday, and in Kyiv and Moscow officialdom, too.

It looks as though Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not going well, with thousands of Russian deaths and casualties; multiple dead generals; and lots of equipment, including one significant ship, destroyed.

But we must take every report from both Moscow and Kyiv with a huge grain of salt.  It is the responsibility of wartime propagandists to lie whenever it might benefit their side, after all.  And there are analysts who see Russia as methodically achieving its goals of partitioning Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine off from the rest, and neutralizing the rest as a buffer between itself and NATO.  This color-coded map of voting results in the 2010 Ukraine election closely resembles the language preferences, with blue regions that supported Yanukovych speaking Russian and red regions that voted for Tymoshenko speaking Ukrainian.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18358/iran-deal-biden-obama

“By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store…. What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran’s financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales.” — Statement from 49 US Republican Senators, March 14, 2022.

With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime’s policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran’s hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran’s interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue — just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, “attitudes will change.” They did. For the worse.

Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran’s terrorist proxies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, Iraq’s Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, “in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region” and a promise “not to attack Americans.”

Iran’s leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier “commitment,” so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though — and a pretty explicit tip-off — they stated that they “didn’t agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead.”

Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, “not to attack Americans”? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.

Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?

To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran’s “excess uranium.” (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran’s uranium to threaten bombing his next “Ukraine”?

One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?

The US proposals — negotiated for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates — have been described as: “This Isn’t Obama’s Iran Deal. It’s Much, Much Worse.” That sounds about right.

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly “refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation.”

Forty-nine Republican Senators recently told the Biden Administration that they will not back the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18357/elon-musk-china

“Other American CEOs have close relationships to the [Chinese Communist] Party. But [Elon] Musk is the only one who loudly praises Beijing while running a space company with incredibly sensitive and powerful defense applications.” — Isaac Stone Fish, Barron’s, November 13, 2020.

Musk’s dilemma is not unique. The close technology-sharing relationship between Tesla and SpaceX poses national security risks to his adopted home country, but so do Google’s and Microsoft’s work with China on artificial intelligence. U.S. government policy is predictably slow in catching up to the speed of hard-charging, globe-spanning enterprises like Musk’s, and the Chinese are only too happy to increase that gap.

At some point, however, companies such as SpaceX, Google and Microsoft, and the individual Americans who own, direct, or invest in them, will face a similar choice between their obligation to America and their pursuit of more profits abroad.

Elon Musk has fans all over the ideological spectrum. People on the Left love him for popularizing electric cars with his Tesla company, or maybe for openly smoking pot on podcaster Joe Rogan’s show. Conservatives love him for his entrepreneurial dash and penchant for standing up to politicians and Big Tech censorship of the internet. And everyone loves Musk for responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and severing of its communications links by making his Starlink satellite broadband internet service available in Ukraine and donating Starlink terminals to Ukrainians. The Starlink connectivity, according to one report, may even be helping armed Ukrainian drones target Russian military vehicles.

Less is known about Musk’s business dealings in Communist China, but that might be about to change.