Ah, the things one hears at high-dollar Democratic Party fundraisers!
Like declaring Russia’s threat to unleash nuclear weapons against Ukraine as the most serious “prospect of Armageddon in 60 years.”
Last week, Sleepy Joe “startled many Americans” with those remarks at a closed-door meeting of big donors.
Backpedaling on Friday, “U.S. officials stressed . . . that the United States has no reason to change its nuclear posture.” No reason? We’re backing one side in a war in which nukes are on the table!
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, didn’t defend Biden’s “Armageddon” terminology but offered that it was “useful for the president and the administration to be having a conversation with the public about the risk.”
Of course, the president gave this frank evaluation to his party’s top check-writers, not the public. And that’s the second biggest problem with U.S. foreign policy: it’s totally divorced from the people.
The biggest? Headin’ towards Armageddon. If Mr. Biden is serious about slouching towards the End Times, he should do more than make it the subject of political locker-room talk.
Like what? How about:
- Seek to reduce tensions, wherever possible, and help Mr. Putin find an off ramp from his war in Ukraine;
- Double- and triple-down on technologically defending the American people from the threat posed by nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; and
- Speak to the people about these threats and the U.S. response.
While security concerns may dictate that information not be shared publicly, if it’s good enough to share on the rubber-chicken circuit, it good enough for ‘We the People.’
We pay the highest prices; we deserve to hear the sales pitch.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with DALL-E
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Armageddon, Anyone?”
Armageddon is the failsafe insurance policy in case their frantic attempts to discredit Trump in the eyes of unwoke Americans (the majority) continues to fail.
Our policy used to be strike on launch. In other words, if our *enemies* launched missles, we would automatically launch a counter-strike.
That is no longer our policy, and it has been this way for a while.
Now we have to wait until we are hit before striking back.
Does anyone see a problem here?
Messrs Biden and Putin have allowed themselves to be manoeuvred such that no outcomes are plausible now other than ignominous Western retreat, nuclear war, or the literal death of Mr Putin.
The game is not simply one of the Biden against Mr Putin. Mr Putin cannot survive if he does not win, and so the Biden seeks to pressure others within the Russian state to depose Mr Putin, rather than be destroyed in a nuclear engagement.