What can President Biden do OTHER THAN what he's doing?

[Dr. Shades]

Regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, K Graham wrote the following in a different thread:

When dealing with a country that has a nuclear weapon, let alone 14,000 of them, military intervention is OFF THE TABLE.

The only option is to hit them with sanctions which is what Biden is doing. He is quite literally doing EVERYTHING a responsible leader can do.

I can't disagree with any of that, even if I wanted to.

Chap later wrote something quite similar:

So the situation of a US president does not leave them much choice:

1. If a non-NATO country is attacked by Russia, which is a nuclear power, no rational president could choose to begin military action.
2. If a NATO country is attacked, the President has no choice about acting to assist them militarily. He has to.

I can't disagree with any of that, either.

MY VIEW: President Biden, like him or not, is literally doing EVERYTHING he can do in this situation. Let's ignore the lead-up for now to avoid having the conversation becoming derailed. Let's focus on the time period from when Russian boots crossed the border.

MY INVITATION: If you disagree with me, or with anything either K Graham or Chap wrote that I quoted above, please post what part(s) you disagree with and why. It would be helpful if you explained HOW any of us are wrong and what you think President Biden should do or be doing instead of what he's doing.

Thanks in advance.

[Jersey Girl]

As I see it, he's doing what he can do right now. He's put an economic choke hold on Russia and on Putin himself. People online are complaining that he's not doing enough because the results of the sanctions won't be realized for several weeks. They want what they want and they want it NOW.

If I understand things correctly, he can't and won't engage in the conflict militarily until and unless shifts onto NATO soil.

I do think that if he wanted to, he could provide weapons/ammunition/supplies like Germany is doing when they recently changed their original position. But...if he did that, I think it would have the potential to escalate into a world war and that's what he's wisely trying to avoid.

I don't know every single thing about this but have been trying to follow events and understand as best as I can.

I know that agreement isn't what you wanted here but I wanted to take part.

[Gunnar]

I do think that if he wanted to, he could provide weapons/ammunition/supplies like Germany is doing when they recently changed their original position. But...if he did that, I think it would have the potential to escalate into a world war and that's what he's wisely trying to avoid.

Have you forgotten or are unaware that that the U.S. already has provided and is providing weapons/ammunition/supplies to Ukraine?

The aid from the U.S. has included both lethal and non-lethal weapons, from Javelin anti-tank missiles, to patrol boats, to small arms and ammunition.

The Javelin anti-tank missiles, first given to Ukraine in 2018, use thermal imaging and can hit tanks from above, where the armor is the thinnest. The decision by the Trump administration to authorize the sale of Javelins marked the first time the U.S. government directly sold lethal weaponry to Ukraine, though private commercial sales had been approved on a case-by-case basis since 2015, according to the Atlantic Council.

Blinken said Wednesday that the U.S. would provide additional material not yet in the pipeline if Russia carries through with any aggressive intent or further invades Ukraine.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-nato-u ... se-russia/

[Jersey Girl]

I do think that if he wanted to, he could provide weapons/ammunition/supplies like Germany is doing when they recently changed their original position. But...if he did that, I think it would have the potential to escalate into a world war and that's what he's wisely trying to avoid.

Have you forgotten or are unaware that that the U.S. already has provided and is providing weapons/ammunition/supplies to Ukraine?

The aid from the U.S. has included both lethal and non-lethal weapons, from Javelin anti-tank missiles, to patrol boats, to small arms and ammunition.

The Javelin anti-tank missiles, first given to Ukraine in 2018, use thermal imaging and can hit tanks from above, where the armor is the thinnest. The decision by the Trump administration to authorize the sale of Javelins marked the first time the U.S. government directly sold lethal weaponry to Ukraine, though private commercial sales had been approved on a case-by-case basis since 2015, according to the Atlantic Council.

Blinken said Wednesday that the U.S. would provide additional material not yet in the pipeline if Russia carries through with any aggressive intent or further invades Ukraine.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-nato-u ... se-russia/

Unaware. Thank you.

[Gadianton]

I think that Biden can be firmer with his allies, especially Germany, and make it clear that they need to build up their militaries and start sharing the load of policing the world. This would be inline, from what I've seen, with what European intellectuals have already been advocating. In the short term, there probably isn't much more he can do, however.

If you primarily mean what can he do today or tomorrow, or next week, then nobody will show up to disagree with you because you, Kevin, and Chap are all correct.

One or two may be tempted to float the idea that this wouldn't have happened on Trump's watch, but these one or two dissidents wouldn't have an actual argument for what Trump would do differently. Only that his persona radiates authority and because of this, Putin would have been too scared to go through with his plans.

[Binger]

I think that Biden can be firmer with his allies, especially Germany, and make it clear that they need to build up their militaries and start sharing the load of policing the world. This would be inline, from what I've seen, with what European intellectuals have already been advocating. In the short term, there probably isn't much more he can do, however.

If you primarily mean what can he do today or tomorrow, or next week, then nobody will show up to disagree with you because you, Kevin, and Chap are all correct.

One or two may be tempted to float the idea that this wouldn't have happened on Trump's watch, but these one or two dissidents wouldn't have an actual argument for what Trump would do differently. Only that his persona radiates authority and because of this, Putin would have been too scared to go through with his plans.

Troll!

[Father Francis]

Troll!

Trust the KGB, East German operative guy. Trust the guy that kills political opponents. Trust the man that said "The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century."

Not the World Wars,

Not the Shoah...

[Binger]

I think that Biden can be firmer with his allies, especially Germany, and make it clear that they need to build up their militaries and start sharing the load of policing the world. This would be inline, from what I've seen, with what European intellectuals have already been advocating. In the short term, there probably isn't much more he can do, however.

If you primarily mean what can he do today or tomorrow, or next week, then nobody will show up to disagree with you because you, Kevin, and Chap are all correct.

One or two may be tempted to float the idea that this wouldn't have happened on Trump's watch, but these one or two dissidents wouldn't have an actual argument for what Trump would do differently. Only that his persona radiates authority and because of this, Putin would have been too scared to go through with his plans.

This is interesting. Besides being a shameless troll and ignoring the OP, this is still very interesting.

Gadianton starts out by agreeing with Trump. Recall, Trump mentioned getting out of NATO, which is a great move, largely because the US neocons and war machine carry a disproportionate amount of the costs.

Then Gadianton trolls with some nonsense about nonsense, including his nonsense about Trump and other posters.

[Binger]

Regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, K Graham wrote the following in a different thread:

When dealing with a country that has a nuclear weapon, let alone 14,000 of them, military intervention is OFF THE TABLE.

The only option is to hit them with sanctions which is what Biden is doing. He is quite literally doing EVERYTHING a responsible leader can do.

I can't disagree with any of that, even if I wanted to.

Chap later wrote something quite similar:

So the situation of a US president does not leave them much choice:

1. If a non-NATO country is attacked by Russia, which is a nuclear power, no rational president could choose to begin military action.
2. If a NATO country is attacked, the President has no choice about acting to assist them militarily. He has to.

I can't disagree with any of that, either.

MY VIEW: President Biden, like him or not, is literally doing EVERYTHING he can do in this situation. Let's ignore the lead-up for now to avoid having the conversation becoming derailed. Let's focus on the time period from when Russian boots crossed the border.

MY INVITATION: If you disagree with me, or with anything either K Graham or Chap wrote that I quoted above, please post what part(s) you disagree with and why. It would be helpful if you explained HOW any of us are wrong and what you think President Biden should do or be doing instead of what he's doing.

Thanks in advance.

The Cold War did not end with two superpowers. It ended with one superpower that spends a lot of borrowed money and another pretty big power and China. We can still knock the hell out of Russia. Their threat obviously, is nuclear and intercontinental power. They can and will do a lot of damage when they decide to do so, and they are doing that now. The neocons in the democratic and republican parties are serving the contractors more than the citizens. It is likely that the neocons want this war to continue to grow and also to deplete war resources that they can replenish - at a huge price.

From the moment boots hit, Biden should be transparent and answer questions from the press, including the press that he does not like. He should also make the pentagon and other departments available. Turning his back on the press and walking away, following rote responses, is a Baghdad Bob look.

There is not a lot Biden can do now to stop Russia. Ukraine is not part of any meaningful alliance, other than having been a money laundering machine for oligarchs and friends of oligarchs, including the Biden family. K Graham is right that we are spectators now, and we should remain spectators. Sanctions are unlikely to work, particularly if they exclude commodities. Russia trades currencies with China and they will get all they need through China. Also, sanctions that do work hurt the citizens more than the oligarchs and plutocrats. We are hurting citizens no matter what, even if it is an inconvenience for the governments and their boosters.

The question in the OP is limited to what Biden could or should do since 2/23/22. Over the last 100 hours or so, he is a frail spectator and cannot, and probably should not, do much more than what he is doing. America should be working toward energy independence, not dependence. But, as it relates to the OP, that was the case before 2/23/22 and there ain't much Biden can do now. He is not going to fast track pipelines, leases, refineries or production to keep homes heated, chemicals for manufacturing and fertilizer, or refined products. In fact, he will likely make all of those things more scarce throughout his presidency. These are not things he could have steered differently during the last 4 days.

[Chap]

MY VIEW: President Biden, like him or not, is literally doing EVERYTHING he can do in this situation. Let's ignore the lead-up for now to avoid having the conversation becoming derailed. Let's focus on the time period from when Russian boots crossed the border.

MY INVITATION: If you disagree with me, or with anything either K Graham or Chap wrote that I quoted above, please post what part(s) you disagree with and why. It would be helpful if you explained HOW any of us are wrong and what you think President Biden should do or be doing instead of what he's doing.

Thanks in advance.

You are forgetting the vital point: in any discussion involving the actions of the US government the only point of the discussion is to abuse President Biden as much as possible. Please stop derailing the thread.