Once Again, Biden Doesn’t Have A Strategy For Ukraine. Where’s The Money Going?

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

The administration that claims to be “saving the soul of Democracy” has once again blown off the legislative branch of government.

When the law to give Ukraine another $61 billion made its way through Congress back in April, lawmakers appropriated the money with strings attached. One big string was section 504 of the bill, which stipulated that within 45 days, the administration had to present a strategy for the war. That strategy was due on June 4 — the Biden administration’s homework is now two months late.

You would be forgiven for thinking we formed a strategy before sending $175+ billion in American tax dollars to the plains of Eastern Europe. Two years into a war that has claimed a million lives, Congress asked for a plan that lays out “specific and achievable objectives” and prioritizes “United States national security interests.” Congress also reasonably requested a best guess on how our actions in Ukraine will be met by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

When the plan finally does arrive on lawmakers’ desks, expect a thousand pages of government pablum. Gone are the days when U.S. leaders clearly and concisely articulated reasons to go to war and our representatives voted on whether or not to commit the nation to conflict.

The United States hasn’t declared war since 1942. Every American knew the Roosevelt administration’s plans for the war on its first day — the president told Congress on December 8, 1941, that the U.S. would “win through to absolute victory” and make sure “this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.” Hard to believe now, but Roosevelt’s demanding “absolute victory” was controversial in that it meant the United States would need to conquer, not just defeat, the Empire of Japan and Third Reich.

Today, our leaders have stopped asking for the approval of the American people when it comes to conflict — ever since we rebranded the War Department, the Department of Defense has been much more war-like.

The war in Ukraine is the latest example. The American people have not been fully briefed on the risks of that far-away battle or the point of U.S. involvement. Our lame-duck president, when he addresses Ukraine at all, calls Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” and claims “we know Putin won’t stop at Ukraine.” That is the total depth of his argument, which he expects the American people to swallow without debate.

But the president’s invective does not make for sound strategy.

First, the risks. America is engaged in a proxy war with Russia, as evidenced by the Russian peoples’ belief that they are at war with the United States and the west. NATO’s expansion towards Moscow is a major red line for Russia. It is also a broken promise, as the United States pledged not to move NATO’s borders “one inch eastward” towards Moscow. After it moved 1,000 miles eastward, Vladimir Putin drew the line in 2007, saying NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

The concern is one that has haunted Russian leaders for centuries. The Poles invaded Russia in 1605, the Swedes in 1707, the French in 1812, and the Germans in 1914 and 1941. In World War II alone, the Soviets lost 24 million people — an incomprehensible figure, dwarfing the 418,000 American casualties.

Regardless of what one thinks of Russia’s system of government or Vladimir Putin, it is a fact that in the past 500 years, Russia has often found itself the target of Western aggression. Perhaps when Putin threatens nuclear war over Ukraine, it is worth taking seriously.

Another risk is to our own vital stocks of armaments. Ukraine is blowing through American missiles and projectiles as an unsustainable rate. Consider that, according to the Congressional Research Service, we’ve given the Ukrainians “10,000+” Javelins and “2,000+” Stingers. That “+” is the classified fig leaf over the exact number, but it is safe to assume we are running low on these arms for our own defense. Until 2022, the United States had not purchased a Stinger since 2003 and the missile line was closed entirely in 2020. Even under the rosiest of scenarios, it is unlikely we will be able to replenish the Stingers we have given to Ukraine until 2028.

Lastly, the huge expenditure of taxpayer dollars going to Ukraine has totaled enough to double the U.S. Navy’s fleet. Worse, it is borrowed. The $175 billion is money we do not have, and that sum does not include interest on the debt.

Given the risks and money on the line, Congress should demand the Biden administration comply with the law. The American people deserve a full accounting.

Morgan Murphy is a former DoD press secretary, national security adviser in the U.S. Senate, a veteran of Afghanistan.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Featured Image Credit: Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #MorganMurphy BidenUkraineStrategy USUkraineFunding

Up Next

We Reap the Harvest of Lies

Don't Miss

Too little too late – Former Australian Premier apologizes for implementing COVID vaccine mandates

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing

Energy / 8 hours ago

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

armed forces / 8 hours ago

Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate

conflict

US and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Hopefully a world war appears unlikely, but the decision to allow Ukraine to shoot U.S. and U.K.-provided missiles into Russia once again reveals the lengths to which the ‘neocon globalists’ will go to throw a lifeline to their failing business model.

News that the lame duck President Joe Biden has authorized long-range strikes into Russia using NATO systems was announced with the alarming warning that he had “started World War III.”

The following day, U.S.-supplied and operated ATACMS missiles were fired into Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the authorized strikes as an “escalation” showing that the West wants war.

“The fact that ATACMS were used repeatedly in the Bryansk region overnight is, of course, a signal that they want escalation,” he said, according to Reuters.

Lavrov continued: “Without the Americans, it is impossible to use these high-tech missiles, as Putin has repeatedly said.”

Why would the U.S. president finally give the green light to use NATO systems to attack Russia? German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to follow suit and supply German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine – because he does not want to see Germany drawn into a direct war with Russia.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded by suggesting it is only a matter of time before U.K.-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles strike deep into Russian territory.

The U.K. government has been behind a long campaign to escalate the war in Ukraine, a move seen as an attempt to secure continued U.S. commitments in Europe. The Trump camp has long signaled its desire to draw down its security provision to leave a “dormant NATO.”

In an indication of the dangers of the U.K.-backed move by Biden, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an alarming amendment of the Russian nuclear doctrine.

The policy change, announced in September and published following Biden’s announcement, says “an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia,” according to the BBC.

Russian nuclear doctrine has long included the use of low-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons in “conventional” warfare – a significantly lower threshold than that of NATO.

While Russian officials urged Western leaders to consult the text, Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that “we strongly are in favor of doing everything to not allow nuclear war to happen.”

As Reuters reported, this latest provocation is “unlikely to be a gamechanger.” Western media outlets have moved from a narrative of Ukrainian victory to mulling how or even if the state of Ukraine can survive its “inevitable” defeat.

Yet it is not only Ukraine which faces an uncertain future with a Russian victory. The entire globalist order faces a significant blow should the war conclude. Statements from figures such as George Soros, U.S. General Mark Milley, E.U. chief Ursula von der Leyen, and the former head of NATO stressed that their liberal-globalist regime is threatened by defeat in Ukraine.

Biden’s decision has been seen as an attempt to frustrate Donald Trump’s declared agenda – to clear out the “deep state globalists” whose “neocons seeking confrontation … such as Victoria Nuland” have led the U.S. into endless wars since that in Iraq.

An escalation to all-out war with Russia would not only be a disastrous precursor to nuclear escalation, but would also preserve the dominance of the same “neocon globalists” whose “forever wars” Trump has pledged to end.

Arch-neocon Robert Kagan said Americans who support ending wars are “intolerant.” He went on to author two articles which Hitlerized Trump and appeared to incite the assassination of a man who promised in his 2024 victory speech, “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.”

This follows a long series of claims in the same vein.

“I will end the war in Ukraine,” Trump declared in February 2023, saying he would also end “the chaos in the Middle East” and “stop World War III.”

This move by Biden has no military significance in improving Ukraine’s chances of victory. Russia claimed to have shot down seven of eight ATACMS fired into its Bryansk region. Yet prolonging or even escalating this war has enormous political significance.

Since the publication of the RAND Corporation’s 2019 paper “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” a strategy of bleeding Russia on the battlefield to collapse its government has been clear. Russia’s near-limitless mineral wealth would provide an obvious boon to a Western system self-sabotaged by sanctions and the destruction of the Nordstream gas supply.

The enormous significance of the war is found in its use as an attempt to extend and consolidate the power of the same system of neocon “globalism” which Trump has vowed to end.

This context explains why the U.K. government has consistently pressed for escalation since the 2022 intervention of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to have sabotaged peace in favor of an all-or-nothing gamble towards “regime change” in Russia.

Since then, the U.K. government has urged the authorization of long-range strikes into Russia, and it has supplied cruise missiles to attack Russian over-the-horizon nuclear radar warning systems, which play no role in the Ukraine war.

Reports have confirmed “terrorist operations” in Russia, including attacks on the Kerch Bridge leading to Crimea were U.K.-led. A recent expose by The Grayzone revealed that the British state appears to be training Ukrainians to fight a guerilla war, extending hostilities even beyond any ceasefire.

Ukraine’s recent and failed offensive into Russia’s Kursk region appears to have also been a British operation – to secure the kind of “morale boost” which Alastair Crooke says is the only significant war-fighting contribution of the authorization of “wonder weapons” like ATACMS.

The ATACMS authorization was heralded as a turning point in the war by Foreign Affairs. Yet the suspicion of Responsible Statecraft that it was a “sideshow that may become a tragedy” appears to have been confirmed.

The grim reality of this war is underscored by the fact that measures taken which will result in even more needless loss of human life are done so to legitimize useful propaganda headlines. This is undertaken to sell a war which has long been predicted to end as it now seems certain to do so: with a victory on Russian terms.

Though it appears unlikely that a world war will result from this latest reckless move, what has been demonstrated once more is the lengths to which the “neocon globalists” will go to throw a lifeline to their failing business model.

That lifeline is perpetual war, and when they end – so do the careers of so many whose livelihoods and reputations depend on keeping them going.

conflict

Putin Launches Mass-Production of Nuclear Shelters for his People

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Russia has begun mass production of mobile nuclear bunkers. This is in response to Ukraine’s use of Western US and British missiles to attack deep inside Russia to destroy its conventional capability so NATO can launch an invasion by March/April 2025.

This has coincided with Mr Putin’s change of Russia’s doctrine to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons to include the use of conventional weapons by Ukraine. Russia’s defense ministry said Ukraine attacked an ammunition stockpile in the Bryansk region using missiles supplied by the US military’s MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

Russia has also ordered the production of its mobile nuclear bunkers to protect citizens. They are shelters capable of protecting people from the light radiation of a nuclear explosion and radioactive contamination of the surrounding environment. These are known as “KUB-M” and will protect 54 people for 48 hours from the air shock wave and light radiation of a nuclear explosion; penetrating radiation and radioactive contamination of the area; high-explosive and fragmentation effects of conventional weapons; falling debris from building structures; dangerous chemicals; fires. Unlike traditional, stationary bunkers, mobile bunkers are built to be easily moved from one location to another, often on vehicles or trailers. They can be equipped with advanced shielding, air filtration systems, and other necessary survival equipment to withstand the harsh conditions of a nuclear event.

The Western press keeps putting out the Neocon and NATO propaganda that Russia will never fire a nuke and Ukraine can win the war. But this is all a smoke screen for NATO will invade Russia, and they are using Ukraine as our Hesbolla, the same as Iran is using Lebanon. Zelensky claimed he invaded Russia to force Putin to peace. But they had a peace deal. Boris Johnson ran to Kiev and instructed Zelensky he was not allowed to sign a peace deal, and now far more than 1 million Ukrainians have been killed so Europe can invade Russia.

Just as Robert McNamara said about Vietnam and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that did not exist in Iraq, what if these people are wrong AGAIN? There goes Europe! Not a single European leader cares about their own people.

Either the Ukrainian people rise up and take their country back, or Putin needs to nuke Kiev to show the world he is serious. Otherwise, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Our press will NEVER write a single word for peace. It is always Putin is bluffing. What if you are wrong again?

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev was just shut down after Biden gave the go-ahead to use long-range missiles. Hm. If this was to win the war, then why flee Kiev? They know Putin will respond forcefully against Zelensky. Russians get nuclear bomb shelters, and we get Fake News – Don’t worry – he’s bluffing.