With the outgoing US president distraught over his failures and seemingly eager to throw a final temper tantrum before his time is up, who is left to be the adult in the room?
Never a dull day: America’s political culture is ever changing. Currently, we are witnessing a beautifully orchestrated “display” of how one leaves the office of president as a sore loser. After the 2020 election, Donald Trump was defeated and had to vacate the White House to make room for Joe Biden.
In the end, whatever you think about the president-elect, January 6 was a political protest that devolved into a riot. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly was not an insurrection. For many it was an expression of contempt for Washington establishment elites and their sense of entitlement to everything inside the confines of the ‘Beltway’ – especially power.
And now, with Trump destined to return – even the New York Times is forced to acknowledge that he is not an aberration but a “transformational force.” But the behavior of the outgoing Biden and his loyalists certainly qualifies as a “temper tantrum” of historic proportions. Think Boston Tea Party, but with really cranky 2-year-olds.
They have found a rather tempestuous way of “throwing their toys out of the pram”: the Biden White House – good liberal internationalists all – have found a way of going global with their “anger management” issues. What’s a few malicious accusations like “you’re garbage” or “you're a fascist” going to get you? On the other hand, your legacy is set – if you can risk triggering World War III.
That may be precisely what the Biden administration is doing – after months of refusals – by allowing the regime of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to use American ATACMS missiles for strikes into Russia territory. The attitude of NATO-Europe has been muddled. Usually, they fall in line with the US, but there are some signs that this time they might actually find a “backbone” – Biden's folly appears a bit too risky for them. Germany will not – for once – follow the US slavishly.
The “barely-still-chancellor” Olaf Scholz is clinging to his “nein” to deliver long range Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev. France and Britain, too, are reported to be “circumspect,” but will likely now allow their missiles to be used as well.
There are several concerns at hand: News of this sudden shift was leaked through the always-obliging New York Times on November 17. One day later, the White House would neither confirm nor deny the story. The immediate ATACMS attack (Nov.19) on the Bryansk region shows that the news was real enough.
Furthermore, the new decision is explosive because it means launching missiles into territory everyone acknowledges belongs to Russia. Finally, things are made worse, because these weapons do not only come from the US, they can only be operated with substantial Western technical assistance (i.e. soldiers).
Here is the problem with this: Such a state of affairs puts US/NATO soldiers inside Ukraine operating US weapon systems on behalf of the Ukrainian military destroying Russian assets on undisputed sovereign Russian territory.
How does one spell ‘provocation’?
Russian president Vladimir Putin has long warned the West that Moscow will not tolerate the view that these missiles come only from Ukraine. Hence, use of the ATACMS could bring about a (direct and open) state of war between Russia and NATO. Washington is “pouring oil into the flames,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented, risking escalating “tensions to a qualitatively new level.”
It seems to this writer that a country firing its own missiles (with and for another country) at a state with a large nuclear arsenal is a really, really “un-smart” move (especially if you're not supposed to be at war with them).
Does it not seem that doing so just after an election made it clear that you no longer have a mandate, especially on that issue, resembles something like contempt for the American people?
There are three possible reasons why President Biden would take such action. Is this personal? Is Joe Biden attempting to show the world that he is not a weak president or person and is using Ukraine to demonstrate his resolve?
Is it “merely” an especially cynical effort designed to undermine the US-Russian relationship even further, so that Trump will have a difficult time stopping the war?
Is it part of an information war strategy aimed most of all at the American people, preparing the ground for the post-proxy war “blame game”? It will sound like this:
“We Democrats did everything we could up to the last minute, but then they, the Republicans, came in and lost Ukraine!”
Whatever the reasons for Biden’s last “hooray,” few “think-tank” types inside the ‘Beltway’ believe that adding ATACMS strikes will actually make a difference on the battlefield. The time when “one more weapon” after another was sold to the American public as a “game changer” is over.
Over the past several months, the rumblings from the EU countries have been about negotiations, not new weapons. German Chancellor Scholtz has even called Putin to talk--the first time in two years.
Today, we hear more moderate, vague chatter that the ATACMS will, in essence, teach North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-Un a lesson. Good luck with that…I’m not quite convinced that the man who built himself a nuclear deterrent in defiance of the US and its allies will be too impressed.
But let’s not try too hard to understand ‘Beltway’ elitist logic, especially like that emanating from the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his deep-state supporters.
In the end, the key factor remains Russia. Or to be more precise, how Moscow will choose to respond to an ATACMS attack – after repeatedly warning the West against it. One option to rule out immediately is that Russia will simply do nothing. That is impossible, because it’s not the 1990s anymore – a disconcerting truth many Western elitists have difficulty living with.
Clearly, Biden (if done for reasons other than spite) did not think this through. Russia will exact a price, and Moscow has options: Even if it considers itself at war, it will still be Russia’s decision about how to respond. It is unlikely that the Russian leadership has any interest in any type of retaliation.
There will be no direct attack on NATO bases in Poland, Romania, or Germany – that would play into the hands of Biden and his erstwhile “European/UK vassals.” And this is especially the case while Russia is prevailing on the ground in Ukraine and on the eve of Trump’s return to Washington.
What seems more likely are responses elsewhere in a world that features 700-800 US bases, and some of those are in places where no one wants them. It would, for instance, be easy for Russia to inflict a painful response through regional adversaries of the US and its allies, the Middle East for instance. And of course, Moscow can certainly retaliate within Ukraine, including against Western black-ops troops and mercenaries, as it has done before.
The bottom line remains that Biden’s last ditch desperate move is that of a sore-loser. This is a president (and his party) that cannot accept the truth that Trump – with his declared vision of making peace by stopping the war in Ukraine – trounced them at the ballot box.
In a like manner, the US foreign policy establishment cannot admit that the entire proxy-war project in Ukraine is a failure. It did not succeed in destroying the Russian economy and isolating it politically. It not only failed but backfired badly. The EU is in an extremely difficult situation economically – while Moscow has grown stronger economically after two years at war, according to the IMF – stronger than most G-7 nations. And the BRICS+ have now expanded to include 13 new members as of this year.
Russia and China are as close as they have ever been and India is clear after Modi’s last summit with Putin: New Delhi is not anti-Western but it is non-Western and will go her own way.
With the outgoing US president distraught over his failures and seemingly eager to throw a final temper tantrum before his time is up, who is left to be the adult in the room?
According to the majority of the American people, it is certainly not the current vice president. Looks like that task falls on president-elect Donald J. Trump--unless Joe Biden destroys that possibility before January.
Read next: The Biden Nightmare Still Haunts America
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
