The Pronk Pops Show 1449, January 21, 2022, Story 1: Highlights of President Biden ‘s Press Conference And Follow-up — Videos — Story 2: Russia Invasion of Ukraine — Soon or Latter — Videos– Story 3: 60% of American People Would Vote For Anyone But Bidden for President in– 2024
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
The Pronk Pops Show 1448 December 14 2022 posted as soon as available
The Pronk Pops Show 1446 December 7, 2021, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1445 December 6, 2021, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1444 November 30, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1443 November 29, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1442 November 19, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1441 November 18, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1440 November 15, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1439 November 12, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1438 November 5, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1437 November 2, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1436 October 29, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1435 October 28, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1434 October 21, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1433 October 15, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1432 October 14, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1431 October 13, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1430 October 07, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1429 October 05, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1428 October 04, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1427 September 29, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1426 September 28, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1425 September 24, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1424 September 23, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1423 September 21, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1422 September 17, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1421 September 16, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1420 September 15, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1419 September 13, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1418 September 10, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1417 August 26, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1416 August 25, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1415 August 24, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1414 August 23, 2021
COVID-19 Closed KDUX Studios From March 14, 2020 Through August 22, 2021
The Pronk Pops Show 1413 March 13, 2020 cancelled due to COVID -19
The Pronk Pops Show 1412 March 12, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1410 March 10, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 9, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 5, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1407 March 5, 2020
The Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Story 1: Highlights of President Biden ‘s Press Conference — Videos —
Story 2: Russia Invasion of Ukraine — Soon — Or Latter — Videos
Confusion over NATO’s Russia stance as Biden celebrates one year in office | DW News
Britain could send MORE weapons to Ukraine as Defence Secretary Ben Wallace pledges support amid fears over imminent Russian invasion
- Britain is open to sending weapons to Ukraine to thwart any Russian invasion
- The UK may add to the 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers already sent this week
- Comes as Russia amassed estimated 127,000 troops at the border with Ukraine
- Britain’s Ministry of Defence fears large-scale warfare causing high death tolls
By MARK NICOL DEFENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 17:02 EST, 19 January 2022 | UPDATED: 17:24 EST, 19 January 2022
Britain is open to sending more weapons to Ukraine to try to thwart any Russian invasion, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said last night.
He told the Daily Mail the UK may add to the 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers sent this week.
It comes as Russia has amassed an estimated 127,000 troops at the border with Ukraine along with tanks and other weapons in apparent preparation for an invasion.
+13View gallery
Britain is open to sending more weapons to Ukraine to try to thwart any Russian invasion, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said last night. Pictured: Ukrainian soldiers are seen along the frontline near the town of Zolote
+13View gallery
Ukraine’s Defense Ministry confirms it has already received a shipment of ‘light anti-tank weapons’ provided by UK
+13View gallery
It comes as Russia has amassed an estimated 127,000 troops at the border with Ukraine along with tanks and other weapons in apparent preparation for an invasion
RELATED ARTICLES
- Blinken warns Russian attack on Ukraine could come at ‘very…Six Russian landing ships sail past Britain sparking…
- Ukraine pleads with Berlin to send warships and missiles to…
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
In an exclusive interview, Mr Wallace said: ‘I will keep the question of sending more defensive weapons to Ukraine under close review. I do not rule anything out within helping Ukraine deliver self-defence.https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.495.1_en.html#goog_1362042877
‘The UK is determined to stand by Ukraine, its sovereignty and our mutual interests. We have been helping them build defensive capacity for eight years now and we decided to step up that assistance in light of Russian aggression. Britain stands by its allies.’
Russia last night accused the UK of fuelling tensions in the region with the weapons deployment. Moscow’s embassy in London tweeted: ‘It is crystal clear that UK shipment of lethal weapons to Ukraine will only fuel the crisis and increase tensions.’
+13View gallery
+13View gallery
A convoy of Russian armored vehicles moves along a highway in Crimea on Tuesday 18 January 
+13View gallery
Ukrainian soldiers stand in a trench near the front line on January 17, in the village of New York, formerly known as Novhorodske, Ukraine
+13View gallery
Snipers started the shooting training at the Kadamovsky training ground in the Rostov region, Russia
Ukraine yesterday demanded economic sanctions against Russia before any invasion rather than afterwards. Defence minister Oleksii Reznikov insisted he wanted action now against Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s regime to avoid ‘a lot of blood’ in his country.
He told the BBC’s Hardtalk: ‘Our partners can do more – like sanctions before the invasion, not after. Let’s show the Kremlin you understand the threat and how the invasion can be made very expensive for them.’
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has flown to Kiev for crisis talks with Ukrainian officials, warned Russia could attack ‘at very short notice’.
The possibility that Britain could send more arms will be welcomed by the Ukrainian government which described this week’s delivery by the RAF as a ‘necessary first step’.
+13View gallery
Deputy Minister of Defence of Ukraine, Anatolii Petrenko (L) attends the delivery of light, anti-armor, defensive weapon systems, supplied by the UKWeapons consigned by the United Kingdom arrive in UkraineLoaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00PreviousPlaySkipMuteCurrent Time0:00/Duration Time0:52FullscreenNeed Text
Further UK deliveries may convince other Western governments to boost their help.
The US has already sent missiles and heavily-armed patrol boats while Turkey has sold Ukraine drones equipped with guided missiles. Sweden is providing medical training to Ukrainian troops.
The Mail can also reveal that British military trainers being sent to Ukraine to instruct its troops on how to use the anti-tank weapons will be drawn from the newly formed Ranger Regiment.
The 800-strong unit was established last year to provide training for the UK’s allies and to fight beside them in certain situations.
+13View gallery
A member of the 503âd Naval Infantry Battalion stationed in Donbas, Ukraine on January 18, 2022
+13View gallery
British military trainers being sent to Ukraine to instruct its troops on how to use the anti-tank weapons will be drawn from the newly formed Ranger Regiment
+13View gallery
It had been thought Mr Putin would choose the ‘simple option’ of sending troops into the Donbass region in south-eastern Ukraine and then negotiate for it to become an independent state, providing a buffer between pro-western Ukraine and Russia
+13View gallery
Members of the 503âd Naval Infantry Battalion relax and prepare lunch while stationed in Donbas, Ukraine on January 18, 2022
But as Nato has said there will be no direct military response to a Russian invasion, the Rangers’ assistance will be restricted to a training package expected to last a few weeks before they head home.
Ukraine released intelligence reports yesterday suggesting Russia had bolstered the size of its forces on the border to 127,000.
Officials said they believed Russia had ‘almost completed’ the build-up of soldiers and hardware required to mount an invasion.
Moscow denies it plans to launch an attack but has pressed the US for security guarantees. It is wary of pro-Western Ukraine’s desire to join the EU and has demanded a withdrawal of Western troops from former Soviet republics.
Germany, Canada extends support to Ukraine amid tensions with Russia | World English News
Russian invasion of Ukraine — Videos
Is Putin going to invade Ukraine?
Russia scholar sorts through possible scenarios amid Moscow-U.S. tension
BY Christina PazzaneseHarvard Staff Writer
DATEJanuary 18, 2022SHARE
Concerns over Russia’s intentions in Ukraine mounted after talks in Geneva between Russia and the U.S.-led NATO security alliance ended last week without success. Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops and moved heavy weapons along its border with Ukraine in recent weeks and has begun positioning forces along the Belarus-Ukraine border. The Pentagon accused Moscow of deploying armed saboteurs into Eastern Ukraine to start violence as a pretext for moving its troops into the country, a tactic Russia used in 2014 during its invasion and occupation of the Crimean Peninsula. The Russians said they would withdraw if NATO agreed to a series of security measures, including permanently banning Ukraine from the Western military alliance, a proposal that has been flatly refused. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ’84 will meet with Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, Friday in an attempt to find a resolution to the standoff.
The Gazette spoke with Alexandra M. Vacroux, executive director of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and lecturer on government at Harvard, about why Russia appears to be readying for a military confrontation with Ukraine and what nonmilitary tools, if any, the U.S. and NATO have to prevent it. Interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Q&A
Alexandra M. Vacroux
GAZETTE: What is Russian President Vladimir Putin up to? Is Russia going to invade Ukraine and if so, why?
VACROUX: The Russians have been saying for a long time — and it’s the subject of a lot of academic debate — that the Americans and NATO promised there wasn’t going to be expansion to the east beyond the borders of the former East Germany at the end of the Cold War. The Russians have been fixated on this idea. When Russians talk about red lines, and “the Warsaw Pact was always there for a reason,” it assumes that countries themselves don’t get to choose what alliance they’re going to belong to, and it assumes that the U.S. was deliberately trying to keep Russia weakened and without its traditional buffer of countries.
So, the Russians see this is as unfinished business from the ’90s after the Soviet Union collapsed. The other thing is that Russia has felt like it’s encircled by hostile powers for 400, 500 years, 1,000 years. Whenever Russia wasn’t expanding it was being invaded by Turks and the French and the Swedes and the Mongols. So, they feel they need a belt of countries around them to protect them from marauders crossing the steppe. Those buffer countries include Georgia and Ukraine. That’s one of the justifications Russia gave to go to war with Georgia in 2008 — that Georgia was getting too close to the West and that was a red line. The U.S. and NATO’s position has always been that Russia doesn’t get to decide who joins an alliance. It’s the countries themselves that decide. And Russia doesn’t accept that.
The Russians gamble that they’re going to mass troops on the Russian border with Ukraine, which they’ve done once before [last year] and then they came to the table and said, “We have these draft treaties for NATO and the U.S., and this is what we want: We don’t want countries that are part of the former Soviet Union to join NATO, and we would like to have a discussion about how you’re going to pull back from our borders.” These draft treaties were complete nonstarters.
Last week the U.S. and NATO said, “There are some points here that we can talk about,” and the Russians said, “This is not a menu; this is a package. Take it or leave it.” NATO and the U.S. said, “Of course, we’re not going to take it.” I don’t know if it was obvious to the Russians that this was going to happen, or if they had convinced themselves that there is a way in which this show of force is going to produce different results than before. One of the reasons we don’t know that is because in an authoritarian regime like Putin’s, there’s a lot of group-speak, if not groupthink. Are there debates happening right now over in Moscow over whether the Russian version of the world order is something that can come into being? Or is it just that this is what they want, and they’ve convinced themselves that it’s necessary, it’s desirable, it’s possible, and therefore, we just have to apply the right degree of pressure? So that’s the first part of it.
The second thing is that we don’t know if the Russians are really going to invade Ukraine. They’ve got the equipment there. There’s a school of thought that says that the Russians think once they have a mass incursion into eastern Ukraine, the population of Ukraine is going to realize that President Volodymyr Zelensky has totally failed them and will topple his government. And then it’s not going to be an invasion because people are going to be glad that the Zelensky government has fallen. I have no idea if people are believing that. It seems completely fanciful and unrealistic. But it could be that the Kremlin has convinced themselves that Zelensky is incredibly unpopular, and it’s not going to take much to topple him.“Nobody really wants to get into exchanging cyberattacks because we don’t know how that story ends. It’s like an arms race without arms control.”
GAZETTE: Since the Geneva negotiations ended, Putin has threatened a full break in diplomatic relations if the U.S. tries to further sanction Russia. Computers belonging to the Ukrainian government were hacked and infected with malware by Russia, according to Ukrainian officials. Broadly, what do these and other threats Russia has issued tell you about Putin’s intentions or state of mind?
VACROUX: Putin, in general, has a very aggressive style, so it doesn’t surprise me that he says, “If you don’t agree with what I want, I’m going to do this and this and this.” The arrest of the Russia-based REvil hacking group [that attacked several Western targets for ransom] was obviously something they could have done at any time. They’ve done it now just to say, “We can be helpful when we want to be. Watch this.” It’s part of the way the Russians are trying to make their position as strong as possible and show that they can threaten the West or the United States or NATO in a number of different ways. What we’re getting now is the list of the different ways in which they can be threatening.
The U.S. has said one of the ways that we would respond is by potentially banning Russia from the SWIFT financial payment system. That would be a big deal. That would basically make it very difficult for Russia to do any international transaction. That has potentially very serious ramifications in the short term. In the medium and long term, there would be alternatives to SWIFT that would be found, which is what Iran has done, and it’s probably not good for the U.S. if alternative systems run by the Chinese, for example, turned out to be functional as far as financial payments are concerned.
The Russians now have a pretty blasé attitude toward Western sanctions. There are two problems. Once they’re applied, you have to continually tighten sanctions for them to remain as effective because people find workarounds. The second problem is that sanctions approved by Congress can only be lifted by an act of Congress, which the Russians don’t expect to happen. The example the Russians use is the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was put in place in 1974 because the Soviet Union wasn’t allowing Jews to emigrate. It was lifted only in 2012, decades after Jews were being allowed to emigrate. Once those sanctions are put in place, they’re basically locked in. There’s no incentive for Russia to try to do something to get them lifted because they’re almost impossible to lift.“Preventing Putin’s inner circle from traveling to the West may be awkward and embarrassing, but at this point, that threat is not going to stop him.”
GAZETTE: What sanctions or punishment does Putin fear?
VACROUX: I don’t think he’s afraid of punishment. The sanctions for the past three or four years, at least, it’s been very clear to all the Russian oligarchs that they’re supposed to be coming back home. They’re supposed to be educating their kids in Russia, and they’re supposed to be leaving their assets in Russia. Now some of them have found ways to have real estate in Miami or whatever, but it’s definitely become less acceptable, for example, to have your kids going to college in the U.S. than it used to be. So there have been ways in which that inner circle has been squeezed, and it frankly doesn’t make a difference. Preventing Putin’s inner circle from traveling to the West may be awkward and embarrassing, but at this point, that threat is not going to stop him.
GAZETTE: Although President Zelensky has been lobbying to join NATO, Ukraine is not a member, and it doesn’t appear there was much support for it to join even before this incident. If Putin’s great fear is the further encroachment of NATO, is this aggression now pushing NATO to take up Ukraine’s defense?
VACROUX: That’s exactly what everyone is asking. They’re not now, and there’s very little prospect of them joining in the near future in part because of this territorial dispute in the east. No one is going to take a country with a territorial dispute with Russia into NATO. That’s the problem with Georgia, also. Because if Article V requires that you defend — no one is going to take anybody with a territorial dispute. It’s already obvious that Ukraine is not on the cusp of joining NATO by a long shot. So that brings us back to why is this happening now? One of the theories is that this is Putin seeing unfinished business he needs to take care of before he steps down or his term ends. I don’t love that because it’s so hypothetical and so skeptical. What is he going to gain by doing this? Especially since the Russians have made it clear — it’s not like they want Ukraine. That area of eastern Ukraine is an economic disaster. And if Ukraine is further split between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian, it means that they have less influence there than they did before, when they could convince the whole country sometimes to be more pro East. There’s something we don’t know about Putin’s calculation here because what we do know doesn’t make sense.
GAZETTE:What signs will you be looking for in the coming days to gauge whether an invasion will be averted or if tensions escalate even further?
VACROUX: A second round of talks, high-level talks. I think that’s essential — to keep the Russians at the table and to keep having a dialogue, even though it doesn’t seem to have been that productive right now. That can always change. Negotiations tend to have a long, frustrating period. In a way, that’s already giving something to Russia, because Russia is in the news; it’s on the world stage; Putin is talking with Biden. All of these things are extremely important to Putin. So, on the one hand, you could say that he’s getting some concessions because we’re coming to the table, but on the other hand, he’s not invading Ukraine. So that is very important. I would also keep an eye on the cyber situation. I would expect some kind of cyberattack by the Russians, perhaps demonstrating what they could do in Ukraine. It will be interesting to see if there’s any kind of Western response. Nobody really wants to get into exchanging cyberattacks because we don’t know how that story ends. It’s like an arms race without arms control. It gets really ugly. If you turn off power grids, people start dying in hospitals. It’s just a really bad way to go.https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/01/is-putin-going-to-invade-ukraine/
Russia Thins Out Its Embassy in Ukraine, a Possible Clue to Putin’s Next Move
The slow evacuation may be part propaganda, part preparation for a conflict or part feint, Ukrainian and U.S. officials say. It could be all three.
By Michael Schwirtz and David E. SangerJan. 17, 2022
KYIV, Ukraine — The week before intensive diplomatic meetings began over the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, American and Ukrainian officials watched from afar as Russia began emptying out its embassy in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.
On Jan. 5, 18 people — mostly the children and wives of Russian diplomats — boarded buses and embarked on a 15-hour drive home to Moscow, according to a senior Ukrainian security official.
About 30 more followed in the next few days, from Kyiv and a consulate in Lviv, in western Ukraine. Diplomats at two other Russian consulates have been told to prepare to leave Ukraine, the security official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters.
How to interpret the evacuation has become part of the mystery of divining the next play by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Thinning out the Russian Embassy may be part propaganda, part preparation for a looming conflict or part feint, Ukrainian and U.S. officials say. It could be all three.
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that its embassy in Kyiv was functioning normally despite what it said were threats against Russian diplomats and their families.
“Yet again, despite the provocations and the aggressive behavior of local radicals, I repeat that our missions are operating as usual,” said the ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria V. Zakharova.
In recent days, the slow departures — which the Russians most likely knew that the Americans and the Ukrainians would see — have become part of the puzzle of what happens next. They are a more ominous data point, in addition to cyberattacks on Ukrainian ministries last week, and reports from Microsoft and the U.S. government that far more destructive malware has been planted in Ukrainian networks but not activated.
Enormous train convoys loaded with tanks, missiles and troops continue to push west through Russia, apparently heading for the Ukrainian border. Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, the authoritarian leader of Belarus, announced on Monday that Russian forces and equipment had begun arriving in his country for a joint military exercise that would be held in two places: on Belarus’s western edge, near Poland and Lithuania, two NATO countries; and along the Ukrainian border, which could prove another pathway for invasion.
The exercise has been given a very American-sounding name: Allied Resolve. But in Kyiv, Ukrainian officials fully expect any Russian troops deployed to Belarus for the exercises to remain in place indefinitely, leaving Ukraine open to attack from the north, the east and the south.
Editors’ Picks
America’s Next Great Restaurants Are in the Suburbs. But Can They Thrive There?Is It Better to Exercise in the Morning or Evening?Sifting Through the Train Thefts of Los AngelesContinue reading the main storyhttps://3b6c3a56d9a7fabbed9d37e403f8c0c9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main storyhttps://3b6c3a56d9a7fabbed9d37e403f8c0c9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
“We’ll be fully surrounded by equal forces,” the senior Ukrainian security official said.
In Washington, U.S. officials say they still assess that Mr. Putin has not yet made a decision to invade. They describe him as more a tactician than a grand strategist, and they believe that he is constantly weighing a host of different factors. Among them is how well he could weather the threatened sanctions on his banks and industry, and whether his demands that Ukraine stop veering toward NATO — and that NATO stop spreading toward Russia — are receiving enough attention.
But the U.S. officials say Mr. Putin may also have concluded that with the United States and other countries arming Ukraine, his military advantage is at risk of slipping away. Britain’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, announced in an address to Parliament on Monday that the country would begin providing Ukraine with light, anti-armor defensive weapons. Mr. Putin may become tempted to act sooner rather than later.
U.S. officials saw Russia’s embassy evacuations coming. “We have information that indicates the Russian government was preparing to evacuate their family members from the Russian Embassy in Ukraine in late December and early January,” a U.S. official said in a statement.
Ukrainian officials say they saw the Russians leave.
But that leaves open the question of what, if anything, the Russians were signaling.
It is possible they were trying to bolster the case that the United States and its Western allies should take seriously their demands that Ukraine can never join NATO, and that troops, nuclear weapons and other heavy weaponry must be removed from former Warsaw Pact states, like Poland, that were once allied with the Soviet Union.
It could also be that the Russians were trying to indicate that an attack was brewing, though there were no other signals. In fact, the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is not increasing at a rate that Pentagon officials expected a month ago.
The latest U.S. estimates are that about 60 battalion tactical groups, known as B.T.G.s and each with an average of 800 soldiers, are now in place at the border with Ukraine. Combined with other local forces, the Russians have about 77,000 troops at the border, with more on the way. Others put the figure at closer to 100,000 — much depends on how different forces are counted — but that is well short of the Pentagon’s estimate more than a month ago that the total number could rise to 175,000.
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
U.S. and European intelligence and military officials say Mr. Putin may be waiting for the ground to freeze, making it easier to get heavy equipment over the border. Or he may be building up slowly, for diplomatic advantage, as he awaits a written reply from the Biden administration and NATO to his demands that they roll back NATO’s military posture to what it was 15 years ago — much farther from Russia’s borders.
While U.S. officials still believe Mr. Putin is undecided about his next move, officials in Kyiv are assessing what an attack may look like, if it happens. It could come in the form of a full-on invasion, the Ukrainian security official said. Or Russia could launch a cyberattack on the Ukrainian energy grid — far larger than the ones conducted in 2015 and 2016 — combined with military escalation in Ukraine’s east, where Russian-backed separatist forces remain deeply entrenched.
No one but the leaders in the Kremlin seem to know for sure how the next days and weeks might play out.
Understand the Escalating Tensions Over Ukraine
Card 1 of 5
A brewing conflict. Antagonism between Ukraine and Russia has been simmering since 2014, when the Russian military crossed into Ukrainian territory, annexing Crimea and whipping up a rebellion in the east. A tenuous cease-fire was reached in 2015, but peace has been elusive.
A spike in hostilities. Russia has recently been building up forces near its border with Ukraine, and the Kremlin’s rhetoric toward its neighbor has hardened. Concern grew in late October, when Ukraine used an armed drone to attack a howitzer operated by Russian-backed separatists.
Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.
The Kremlin’s position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATO’s eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscow’s military buildup was a response to Ukraine’s deepening partnership with the alliance.
Rising tension. Western countries have tried to maintain a dialogue with Moscow. But administration officials recently warned that the U.S. could throw its weight behind a Ukrainian insurgency should Russia invade.
Against this backdrop, a senior delegation of U.S. senators arrived in Kyiv on Monday. Their trip followed a visit to Kyiv last Wednesday by the C.I.A. director, William J. Burns, who consulted with intelligence officials and met with Mr. Zelensky to discuss efforts to de-escalate tensions with Moscow, a U.S. official said. Mr. Burns’s trip was reported earlier by CNN.
The senators’ visit was a bipartisan show of support from Ukraine’s most powerful ally, even if they brought few specific proposals for staving off a Russian attack.
“Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and the actions that they are planning today, represent the most serious assault on the post-World War II order in our lifetime,” Senator Christopher S. Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said at a news conference in Kyiv.
Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and instigated a violent separatist uprising that effectively cleaved away two Ukrainian provinces. More than 13,000 people were killed in the fighting.
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
At the news conference, Mr. Murphy said he hoped legislation that outlines punishing sanctions against Russia’s leadership, including Mr. Putin, would reach President Biden’s desk before any Russian action and possibly help deter it. In a meeting with the senators late Monday, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine urged them to impose sanctions quickly “to counter the aggression” from Russia.
The senators’ pledges to defend democracy and vanquish tyranny seemed a throwback to the Cold War. Indeed, observers have argued that Mr. Putin’s threats against Ukraine are rooted in a desire to reconstitute a Moscow-led Eastern bloc reminiscent of Soviet times.
Similarly, Mr. Lukashenko, the Belarusian leader who is close to Mr. Putin, made his own argument that the Russians were responding to the Americans.
“What are the Americans doing here?” Mr. Lukashenko said. “There are these hotheads who are calling for war.”
It is possibly in that spirit that Russian troops will begin military exercises in Belarus next month. Security officials fear that the exercises could become a pretext for long-term deployment of Russian forces in the former Soviet republic, which shares a lengthy western border with the European Union and NATO.
Mr. Lukashenko has pledged to follow Mr. Putin’s lead on any action in Ukraine.
Julian E. Barnes and Anton Troianovski contributed reporting.
What Russia might do in Ukraine: 5 scenarios
While it is impossible to predict what Russian President Vladimir Putin has planned, any decision may not be as black-and-white as “to invade or not to invade.”
By LUKE COFFEYon December 09, 2021 at 9:22 AM
Ukrainian sea border security soldiers man a checkpoint at the Mariupol Port as Ukraine’s navy mobilises on the Azov Sea on November 28, 2018 in Mariupol, Ukraine. (Photo by Martyn Aim/Getty Images)
With Russian troops amassed on Ukraine’s eastern border, US and NATO officials are watching nervously what Russian President Vladimir Putin might do next. Will he heed US warnings not to further invade the former Soviet state? Or is a new, widespread bloody offensive for territory looming? In this op-ed, the Heritage Foundation’s Luke Coffey argues that question is an oversimplification, and Putin has many more options on the table.
Ukraine is at a tipping point, and its ongoing national struggle will determine whether its future geopolitical orientation tilts toward the West or Moscow. The outcome will have long-term implications for the transatlantic community and the notion of national sovereignty.
Since 2014, Russia has illegally occupied almost 5% of Ukraine’s landmass and more than half of its coastline. In eastern Ukraine, Russia and Russian-backed separatists continue to propagate a war that has resulted in more than 13,000 lives lost and 30,000 wounded, heavily damaging the Ukrainian economy and slowing Ukraine’s progress toward deepening ties with the West.
Now, Russia is raising tensions again. For the second time in a year, Russia has conducted a large-scale military mobilization along Ukraine’s borders. As many as 175,000 Russian troops are poised to attack at a moment’s notice.
While it is impossible to predict what Russian President Vladimir Putin has planned — and US officials say they don’t know what he’s thinking — any decision may not be as black-and-white as “to invade or not to invade.” The US must be prepared to respond not just to an actual mass offensive as most feared, but a range of scenarios in which the Russians exert pressure in other ways. Some possibilities include:
The non-kinetic scenario: Russia uses the military buildup to try to extract concessions from the West on NATO enlargement. Russia’s strategic goal here is to keep Ukraine distanced from organizations like NATO and the European Union. Russia would also benefit from the long-term integration of Ukraine into Moscow-backed groups like the Collective Security Treaty Organization or the Eurasian Economic Union.
The most effective way for Russia to achieve this goal is by keeping the conflict in eastern Ukraine “frozen”—meaning that the major fighting stops, but localized fighting remains without a conclusive end to the conflict. That means using the troops on the border as political leverage, not as actual invaders.
A resilient, layered space-based architecture is well suited to missile warning systems
While the GEO-based Space-Based Infrared System continues to serve US missile-warning needs, emerging threats and an increasingly contested space environment may benefit from a layered architecture in multiple orbits.From BREAKING DEFENSE
A limited offensive, to entrench -Russian-backed separatists: A plausible scenario, assuming a lack of US and European resolve, is that Moscow helps the separatists consolidate gains in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to create a political entity that functions more like a viable state. This would involve the capture of major communication and transit nodes (such as the city and port of Mariupol) and the Luhansk power plant, all of which are under Ukrainian government control. While this could be done in a piecemeal manner, such a move would also require the complete abandonment of any notion of a cease-fire.
More aggressive push for a land bridge to Crimea: Currently, the Russian Federation is connected to Crimea only by a newly built bridge across the Kerch Strait. Ukraine has also blocked Crimea’s main source of fresh water. Connecting Russia to Crimea along the coast would alleviate some of Russia’s logistical challenges, especially as it pertains to fresh water, while turning the Sea of Azov into a Russian lake. However, this would require a sizeable military force breaking through strongly fortified positions along the frontlines of the Donbas and the capture of Mariupol, Ukraine’s 10th largest city.
Large offensive to capture major cities: The most aggressive scenario could involve Moscow’s attempting to re-establish control of the Novorossiya region of imperial times in southern Ukraine. This would create a land bridge between Russia and Crimea, eventually linking up with the Russian-occupied Transnistria region of Moldova. This would require a large-scale mobilization of Russian forces sufficient to take over Odesa (Ukraine’s third-largest city) as well as Mariupol. If successful, this would fundamentally change the geopolitical and security landscape in Eastern Europe in a way not seen since World War II.
A wildcard scenario: Russia stirs political problems in Ukraine’s Budjak region in the Odesa Oblast. The main goal here would be to manufacture a local political crisis that causes problems for the central government in Kyiv. Moscow attempted this a few years ago (see the so-called National Council of Bessarabia). Budjak is only connected to rest of Ukraine by one regional road. Bordering Budjak is Moldova’s autonomous Gagauzia region. This ethnically Turkic, Orthodox Christian, and Russian speaking region has close links to Moscow and is pro-Russian. Domination of Budjak, in addition to Russia’s military presence in Transnistria, would put Moscow in control of a sizeable stretch of Ukraine’s western border. This would also threaten the stability of Odesa.
Upgraded Arrow-3 test has kinetic kill on simulated Iranian ballistic missile
Israeli sources that were present in the control room in the Palmachim IAF base told Breaking Defense that the targets were destroyed by kinetic kill.
By ARIE EGOZI
It should be noted that any scenario involving conventional military operations would also include sophisticated cyberattacks, effective disinformation campaigns to undermine local and international support for Ukraine’s government, and the activation of “little green men” and other political antagonists to subvert local and national government institutions as was done in Crimea in 2014.
As for a timeline regarding any Russian military operation, that’s anyone’s guess. However, the following should be kept in mind: the ground in eastern Ukraine will be suitably frozen (advantageous to offensive operations and problematic for defenders) in early 2022; the Orthodox Christmas is on January 7, and the international community’s attention will be on 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing starting February 4. Russia invaded Georgia during the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. Also, the Volga-Don Canal, that connects the Sea of Azov with the Caspian Sea, will freeze over in the coming weeks making it inoperable. Any Russian amphibious assault would most likely require ships from Russia’s Caspian Flotilla using the Volga-Don Canal.
In all of these scenarios, Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the victim. That’s the way it has been since the Russian invasion of 2014.
Modern Ukraine represents the idea that each country has the sovereign ability to determine its own path and to decide with whom it has relations, and how and by whom it is governed. No outside actor (in this case, Russia) should have a veto on membership or closer relations with organizations like NATO. It is in America’s interest that Ukraine remains independent, sovereign and free to choose its own destiny. The US must be ready for whatever comes next.
Luke Coffey is the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/12/what-russia-might-do-in-ukraine-5-scenarios/
4 things Russia wants right now
Updated January 13, 20221:39 PM ET
Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) and President Biden shake hands during their meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. Russia, the United States and its NATO allies are meeting this week for negotiations focused on Moscow’s demand for Western security guarantees and Western concerns about a recent buildup of Russian troops near Ukraine.Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool, AP
MOSCOW — First U.S. and Russian diplomats faced off in Geneva. Then NATO received a Russian delegation in Brussels. Finally, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe sponsored talks in Vienna Thursday.
Russia courted all this attention by massing some 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, raising fears of a Russian invasion. Analysts read Russia’s buildup as an attempt to pressure the U.S. and its European allies into concessions on a series of far-reaching “security guarantees” sought by Moscow.
What does Russia want and why is it so hard for the U.S. to meet Moscow partway? Here’s a guide.
1. Russia wants a guarantee Ukraine can never join NATO
Russia’s main demand is a commitment from NATO to end its further expansion into former Soviet republics — especially Ukraine. Russia wants NATO to rescind a 2008 promise that Ukraine could someday join the defense alliance. Many observers see it as a distant prospect that Ukraine could join NATO because it doesn’t meet membership requirements. But Moscow doesn’t see it that way. “We don’t trust the other side,” Russia’s chief negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, said after bilateral talks with the U.S. finished Monday. “We need ironclad, waterproof, bulletproof, legally binding guarantees. Not assurances. Not safeguards. Guarantees. With all the words — ‘shall, must’ — everything that should be put in.”Article continues after sponsor message
Russia’s reasoning: President Vladimir Putin views Ukraine as an extension of what he calls “historical Russia” — a part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, and within Moscow’s “sphere of influence” today. The threat of Ukraine’s westward turn after a street revolution ousted the country’s pro-Russian president in 2014 was the driving force behind Russia’s annexation of Crimea later that year. Ukraine’s desire to join the Western alliance also led to Russia’s sponsorship of separatists in the country’s eastern Donbas region — in effect sabotaging its path to membership by fueling a civil war.
NATO’s counter: The U.S. argues that countries have a right to choose their own alliances and NATO has a long-standing “open door policy” for potential membership. “NATO has never expanded through force or coercion or subversion. It is countries’ sovereign choice to choose to come to NATO and say they want to join,” Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said Wednesday after a meeting between Russian and NATO officials in Brussels. Russia’s actions are making the idea of NATO membership more appealing to Ukrainians, according to opinion polls. It is unlikely, however, that Ukraine will meet the requirements anytime soon.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (center) and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko arrive for the NATO-Russia Council at NATO headquarters, in Brussels, Wednesday. Senior NATO and Russian officials met to try to bridge differences over the future of Ukraine.Olivier Hoslet/Pool photo via AP
2. Russia wants NATO arms out of Eastern Europe
The draft proposals on security that Russia sent to Western powers in December would ban NATO from deploying its weapons and forces in countries in Central and Eastern Europe that joined the alliance after 1997. In effect, that would downgrade membership for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia and Bulgaria to symbolic status at best.
Russia’s reasoning: Moscow sees NATO’s addition of former communist countries in Eastern and Central Europe beginning in 1997 as violating a core promise by the United States when the Soviet army peacefully withdrew from Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In Putin’s view, the West took advantage of Russian weakness in expanding the alliance over multiple Russian objections. “And where is it written down on paper?” recalled Putin in recounting NATO’s decisions to expand eastward in subsequent years. “They would say to us. ‘It’s not on paper? Well then get lost along with your concerns.’ And that’s the way it’s been year after year.” Now Putin appears to be acting as if Russia is in a position to dictate new terms — and rewrite the story of the end of the Cold War.
NATO’s counter: U.S. officials have made clear they believe even Russia knows this demand is unrealistic. Acceding to Russia’s proposal would mean redrawing the map of Europe after the Cold War and placing Moscow’s security demands above the concerns of whole swaths of Europe that were once under Russian Soviet control. Western officials also contest the idea the alliance promised not to expand and say it was Russian actions that led NATO to beef up deployments in the new member states. “NATO never even had any forces on its eastern edge because we didn’t feel the need to have troops close to Russia until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and led NATO members to be concerned that they might keep going into NATO territory,” Victoria Nuland, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said Tuesday.
This photo taken from video distributed by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service shows Russian military vehicles move during drills in Crimea, April 22, 2021.Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP
3. Russia wants a ban on NATO missiles within striking distance
Russia says it wants a ban on intermediate-range missiles in Europe — in effect, reinstating a Cold War-era treaty abandoned in 2019 by the Trump administration, which accused Russia of repeated violations. Believing that the Biden administration is game for a deal, the Kremlin says it wants to bundle arms control progress with its other grievances against NATO expansion. “Are we putting our rockets near the borders of the United States? No we’re not,” argued Putin to a Western journalist during a press conference in December. “It’s the U.S. with its rockets coming to our doorstep.”
NATIONAL SECURITY
Historic Arms Control Treaty Ends With Washington And Moscow Blaming Each Other
Russia’s reasoning: While Ukraine could be a long way from NATO membership today, Russia has nervously watched as NATO has demonstrated it can deepen its involvement in Ukraine — providing weapons and training — without the former Soviet republic becoming a member. Russia’s president has made no secret he envisions a day in the not-so-distant future when NATO missiles could be housed on Ukrainian soil within minutes’ striking distance from Moscow. “For us this is a serious challenge — a challenge to our security,” Putin said.
NATO’s counter: This could be an area of compromise. For starters, some Democratic lawmakers opposed the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.
4. Russia wants autonomy for eastern Ukraine
Russia says Ukraine must meet its obligations under 2015 agreements to end the fighting between Ukraine’s army and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine that has killed some 15,000 people. That peace deal, known as the Minsk agreements, has stalled and Ukrainians are killed practically every week, but it allowed Russia to largely keep up the fiction it is not a party to the war in the Donbas region. Moreover, the Minsk agreements would provide additional autonomy to the separatist Russian-speaking territories in the Donbas.
Russia’s reasoning: Moscow has long believed the U.S. calls the shots in Kyiv and the U.S. has expressed support for the Minsk accords as a path toward deescalation. Moreover, for Moscow, it’s a way to guarantee rights for Russian speakers in the Donbas — and provide the Kremlin leverage into Ukrainian affairs going forward.
NATO’s counter: The U.S. supports the Minsk agreements. Kyiv is less enthusiastic. The deal as signed rewards Russia for stirring up the conflict — meddling that Russia denies. Kyiv and Washington argue Moscow has also failed to meet obligations to the deal.
Michele Kelemen contributed to this explainer from Washington, D.C.
Biden Seeks to Reassure Ukraine, Vowing a Strong Response to Russia and Transferring Weapons
President says any Russian troop movement into Ukraine would be considered an invasion, clarifying earlier remarks about a ‘minor incursion’
By Vivian Salama and James Marson in Kyiv, Ukraine, and Alex Leary in Washington, D.C.Updated Jan. 20, 2022 9:33 pm ETPRINTTEXT324Listen to articleLength7 minutes
President Biden said Thursday that any Russian troop movement into Ukraine would be considered an invasion, seeking to clear up confusion over his position on a potential incursion as the administration gave approval for U.S.-made weapons to be transferred to Kyiv.
“I’ve been absolutely clear with [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin. He has no misunderstanding,” Mr. Biden said at a White House event. “If any—any—assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion.”
Mr. Biden’s comments came a day after he sparked criticism, both domestically and in Europe, when he suggested a “minor incursion” by Russia would be met with less than the punishing economic measures his administration has promised for weeks.
Ukraine, already unnerved by the nearly 100,000 Russian troops near its borders, was shaken by the comments, and several officials spoke out, saying that any suggestion of a weaker response would only encourage Mr. Putin.
Military force locations:
Russian
Russian proxy
Ukrainian
Belarusian
Type of force:
Mechanized
Infantry
Airborne
Tank
Marine
Special forces
Minsk
POLAND
BELARUS
Warsaw
RUSSIA
Kiev
L’viv
UKRAINE
Donetsk
MOLDOVA
Odessa
ROMANIA
CRIMEA
Bucharest
Black Sea
Note: Locations in Belarus show where troops are positioned or are moving to.
Source: Dr. Phillip Karber
“Speaking of minor and full incursions or full invasion, you cannot be half-aggressive. You’re either aggressive or you’re not aggressive,” Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba of Ukraine said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “We should not give Putin the slightest chance to play with quasi-aggression or small incursion operations.”
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
The 10-Point.
A personal, guided tour to the best scoops and stories every day in The Wall Street Journal.PREVIEWSUBSCRIBE
WSJ NEWSLETTER
Notes on the News
The news of the week in context.I would also like to receive updates and special offers from Dow Jones and affiliates. I can unsubscribe at any time.I agree to the Privacy Policy and Cookie Notice.SIGN UP
Beyond Mr. Biden’s remarks Thursday, the administration permitted the Baltic nations of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, hard on Russia’s border, to send to Ukraine U.S.-made Javelin antitank weapons and Stinger air-defense systems, U.S. officials said.
Five Russian-made Mi-17 transport helicopters will also be transferred to Ukraine, the officials said. The helicopters had been intended for Afghanistan’s military and were being repaired in Ukraine when the U.S.-backed Afghan government collapsed.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who traveled to Kyiv earlier this week, met Thursday in Berlin with the German chancellor as well as with the foreign ministers of Germany and France and a senior U.K. official.
Mr. Blinken is due to meet Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia on Friday in Geneva.
Ukrainian officials are nervous in part because their analysis is that a large-scale attack isn’t Russia’s probable course. Stiff Ukrainian resistance to a direct assault and pressure from the West would act as a deterrent, the officials said. Instead, they said, the Kremlin would probably deploy more covert measures to destabilize its neighbor and remove its leadership.https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Mr. Biden didn’t directly address the Ukrainian criticism but noted that the nation’s foreign minister had voiced confidence in U.S. support. “And he has the right to be,” Mr. Biden, a Democrat, said.
“Let there be no doubt at all that if Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price,” he said.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Biden said Russia would be held accountable if it invaded Ukraine, adding, “It depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.
He said that if Russia invades Ukraine, “it is going to be a disaster,” and the U.S. and its allies would respond with measures including economic sanctions.
The White House said following Mr. Biden’s remarks that if any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, it would be regarded as “a renewed invasion” and met with swift consequences from the U.S. and its allies.
Ukrainian leaders are trying to reassure citizens and stave off panic as the number of Russian troops around the country continues to swell. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a televised address Wednesday noted that the country had lived under the threat of war since 2014, when Russia first invaded.
“The risks have been present for more than a day, and they haven’t grown,” Mr. Zelensky said. “The hype around them has grown.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=vmsalama&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1484171183264129025&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fukraines-foreign-minister-says-bidens-minor-incursion-comment-invites-russian-attack-11642686159&sessionId=ff022084dfaf36ae4c6b72c22eb18c92952c1bbd&siteScreenName=WSJ&theme=light&widgetsVersion=75b3351%3A1642573356397&width=550px
Ukrainian officials are urging Western leaders not to play down apparently less-lethal aggression by Moscow because attacks are likely to begin in more covert ways—with cyberattacks, disinformation and provocations designed to destabilize the country and manufacture a pretext for invasion.
Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said a military invasion would be very costly for Russia, given the size of Ukraine’s army, the population’s will to fight and pressure from the West. More likely, he said, Russia would seek, at least in the short term, to intensify a campaign of cyberattacks, provocations, disinformation and economic pressure.
“It will be very difficult for them to achieve their aims by military means. I think, impossible,” Mr. Danilov said. “They have a multifaceted plan to destabilize the domestic situation on the territory of our country. That’s the No. 1 task for them.”
The threat assessment presented by Mr. Danilov underscores the difficulty for Ukrainian and Western officials trying to gauge Mr. Putin.
The Kremlin has denied it is planning an invasion, but Mr. Putin has repeatedly indicated he wants to pull Ukraine, which aims to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, back under Russia’s control.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Are the U.S. and its allies doing enough to defend Ukraine against possible Russian aggression? Join the conversation below.
In 2014, Russia seized Crimea and tried to foment separatist uprisings across Ukraine’s east and south, according to Western and Ukrainian officials. Those rebellions gained a foothold only in two eastern regions with the help of Russian fighters, equipment and, eventually, a covert military invasion. Today, Ukraine’s army is considerably stronger and better equipped. Still, Russia’s military is significantly more potent.
Mr. Putin’s options could include attempting to invade and occupy parts of Ukraine, using a rapid assault to force Kyiv to negotiate, or seeking to pressure the West into compromises with the threat of action, current and former Ukrainian officials said.
Mr. Danilov said Russia, along with Belarus, was behind a cyberattack last week. The U.S. said Russia had deployed a group of operatives to launch a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky accused Russia late last year of plotting a coup against him. Russia has denied involvement.
Opinion: Biden’s ‘minor incursion’ remark was more than just a gaffe. It revealed a weak president.
By Henry OlsenColumnist|FollowYesterday at 1:25 p.m. EST
President Biden’s news conference on Wednesday was a microcosm of the reasons his presidency is on life support. Nothing better demonstrates that than his statement that the United States might tolerate a Russian “minor incursion” into Ukraine.Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.
Official U.S. policy has been clear from the outset of the mounting geopolitical crisis. If Russia invades Ukraine, as its troop buildup near the border suggests it might, the United States and its NATO allies would impose massive economic sanctions. Reiterating that policy should have been a chip shot for the president. Instead, he issued a blunder heard round the world.
It doesn’t matter that White House press secretary Jen Psaki issued a clarifying statement only moments after Biden left the stage that the United States would view any movement of Russian forces into Ukraine as an invasion. Or that Biden the next day emphasized that Russia would pay a “heavy price.” Ukrainian officials still seemed flabbergasted by the remark, and allies who were already leery of following Biden’s lead are likely nervous about where he might be taking them.ADVERTISING
Biden has now sown uncertainty where there was clarity, all because he was unable to provide a nuanced point that Russia’s current efforts to destabilize Ukraine do not cross the line that would produce the allegedly crippling sanctions. Ukrainians and our allies must wonder what he will say if he ever speaks off the cuff with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
That inability is a clear example of why so many Americans think he is not up to the job. Biden’s unforced error, followed by a rambling word salad that left listeners more confused than when he started, provides more than enough grist for the mill for those who say he’s not.
Follow Henry Olsen‘s opinionsFollow
Marc A. Thiessen: Biden wants to brag, but most Americans think his first year was a disasterJennifer RubinCOUNTERPOINTThe media wants to paint Joe Biden as a failure. He won’t let that happen.
Biden’s gaffe also follows an unnerving pattern of pander and bluster. Biden fancies himself a premier negotiator, but he is often extremely conciliatory, allowing others to advance their preferred positions without much push back. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) used this to dramatically scale back Biden’s initial tax-and-spending proposals to the consternation of party progressives. He’s too willing to give away more than he needs, and can’t even reach a deal when he does.https://6413f77f4e258a28a54d36bc7db25aa6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Once his conciliation fails, however, he often resorts to extreme harshness bordering on demagoguery. Consider his partisan and reckless speech on voting rights, in which he demonized those who do not support his proposed reforms as the rhetorical descendants of repugnant racists such as Jefferson Davis. Listeners don’t quake in their boots in fear when he speaks like this; they roll their eyes. Such bluster doesn’t get him any closer to his goal. In fact, it underscores his weakness.
Which brings us back to the threat of Russia invading Ukraine. Why would Putin believe Biden in the face of his enduring ineptitude? Putin knows many European allies are leery of the pain that serious sanctions would inflict on their economies. Many are dependent upon the importation of Russian natural gas to heat their homes and workspaces. Crushing sanctions would halt these imports, and thus hurt Russia, but they would also cripple nations that rely on them. If Biden can’t even get two wayward Democratic senators on board with their party’s priorities, why would Putin think he can get sovereign countries to engage in economic self-harm? The sheer incongruity of what Biden threatens makes the threat weaker, and thus weakens him as well.
Jennifer Rubin: The media wants to paint Biden as a failure. He won’t let that happen.
Indeed, Putin already has experience with the United States backing away from a seemingly clear red line. President Barack Obama did that in Syria in 2013 when he failed to strike Syrian forces after they used chemical weapons even though he said he would. That bluff was all that Putin needed; if Obama wouldn’t oppose chemical weapons strikes, he had no stomach for intervening in the Syrian civil war at all. By the end of 2015, Russian troops were on the ground there in support of the Syrian regime, saving the country’s dictator from defeat and bolstering Russia’s role in Middle East politics.
Biden’s gaffe is consistent with what we’ve seen so far. He is a weak president who is neither feared nor loved. For the United States, that will likely mean a devastating defeat for Democrats in this year’s midterms. For Ukraine and other U.S. allies, it could mean much worse.
Story 3: President Biden Job Approval Falling to New Low — Videos
Pronk Pops 
Leave a comment