People often talk about Biden's gaffes in jest, but his regime change comment yesterday was the absolute worst gaffe of his lifetime and literally made the entire world less safe. The man should not be allowed in front of a microphone -- his brain is too far gone. It's a global security risk.
WaPo: How Biden sparked a global uproar with nine ad-libbed words about Putin By declaring that the Russian leader ‘cannot remain in power,’ the U.S. president seemed to suggest a drastic change in U.S. policy — prompting a scramble by White House officials https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/26/biden-putin-regime-change/ excerpt: WARSAW — During his presidential campaign, President Biden often reminded his audience about the heavy weight that the words of a president can carry. “The words of a president matter,” he said more than once. “They can move markets. They can send our brave men and women to war. They can bring peace.” They can also, as Biden discovered on Saturday, spark a global uproar in the middle of a war. With nine ad-libbed words at the end of a 27-minute speech, Biden created an unwanted distraction to his otherwise forceful remarks by calling for Russian President Vladimir Putin to be pushed out of office. “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Biden said. It was a remarkable statement that would reverse stated U.S. policy, directly countering claims from senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who have insisted regime change is not on the table. It went further than even U.S. presidents during the Cold War, and immediately reverberated around the world as world leaders, diplomats, and foreign policy experts sought to determine what Biden said, what it meant — and, if he didn’t mean it, why he said it. *** “The speech was quite remarkable,” said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “This is one of those speeches where the one-liner in many ways drowns out the intent of the speech. Because that’s exactly what people are focusing on.” Miller said that had the White House not immediately clarified, the comment would have led to a significant shift in policy and signaled to Putin that the United States would attempt to drive him out of office. It is unclear what the full impact of the comment may be in coming days. “I’m risk averse by nature, especially with a guy who has nuclear weapons,” he said. “But will it have operational consequences? I don’t know.” It likely signals to Putin what he already suspected about Biden’s true feelings, and it almost certainly will be used as part of Russia’s propaganda. “I guess you can call this a gaffe from the heart,” Miller said. “If Biden could close his eyes tomorrow and have 10 wishes, one would be there’s a leadership change in Russia.” But the comment also seemed to provide a window into Biden’s current thinking, and some of the mind-set that the administration has with regard to Putin. “What it tells me, and worries me, is that the top team is not thinking about plausible war termination,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the book “The Art of War in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and Resolute Restraint.” “If they were, Biden’s head wouldn’t be in a place where he’s saying, ‘Putin must go.’ The only way to get to war termination is to negotiate with this guy,” O’Hanlon said. “When you say this guy must go you’ve essentially declared you’re not going to do business with him,” he added. “However appealing at an emotional level, it’s not going to happen. We can’t control it, and it probably won’t take place anytime soon.” more at the link
lest we forget, OT was conspicuous silent when Orange Hair had publicly declare, in the Helsinki summit, that he trusts Putin, not so much his own intelligence team.
so says traitor george , who was silent on Orange hair's many gaffe Mexico will pay for the southern border wall, he trusts Putin, and not the US intelligence community trade wars are easy COVID will just go away
Commodore had his head buried in sand, when this Trump gaffe happened White House claims Trump just joking when he said he ordered COVID testing slowdown
Traitor George publicizing his willful ignorance of US history for the education of Traitor George, you are ignorant of this about Ronald Reagan, the former union leader and a life-long Democrat, who later switched party and went on to become the Gov of Calif, and then POTUS, awa the father of post-Watergate Republican Party. As POTUS, in 1984, from his vacation home in Santa Barbara, in his weekly radio address, Reagan referred to Russia as the "evil empire", followed with "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
[Premium Post] Biden is no longer taken seriously on the global stage. His handlers had to clean up a massive and reckless gaffe literally minutes after Biden mumbled it. Foreign adversaries see this and know that Biden is not in control. When a President's words are no longer respected, then the use of a President's words as a deterrent is no longer viable. To manage this conflict in Ukraine, we will unfortunately have to rely on leaders in Europe. Which is a sad state of affairs for America's position on the geopolitical landscape. Biden's incompetence and mental decline are making the world a very dangerous place.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-stokes-nuclear-fears-with-atomic-weapons-warnings-11648381573 Putin Stokes Nuclear Fears With Atomic Weapons Warnings As Russian forces meet fierce resistance in Ukraine, Western capitals worry Kremlin could turn to tactical nuclear arms By Thomas Grove Updated Mar. 27, 2022 8:22 am ET When Russia unveiled previously secret details of its nuclear-weapons doctrine for the first time in 2020, it confirmed something U.S. war planners had long suspected: Moscow would be willing to use atomic arms to keep from losing a conventional war. Since Russian President Vladimir Putininvaded Ukraine last month, he has repeatedly raised the specter of nuclear war, invoking his country’s atomic arsenal in an effort to deter the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from getting involved in the conflict. But as Mr. Putin’s army has faced fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces strengthened by large infusions of Western weaponry, concerns have grown in Washington and allied capitals that Russia could consider using a so-called tactical nuclear weapon to gain the upper hand on the battlefield. Such weapons, which generally have a less powerful warhead than a strategic nuclear weapon carried on an intercontinental ballistic missile, were part of Cold War military thinking though they never figured into the arms-control agreements of the past between the U.S. and Russia or the Soviet Union. The move would be aimed at crushing Ukraine’s will to fight, turning the tide of the war or signaling that current levels of Western support—including transfers of antitank and air-defense systems—are intolerable, Russian and Western analysts say. The first use of an atomic weapon since the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II would likely cause major damage and radioactive contamination to any Ukrainian city hit—and perhaps beyond, depending on wind and other factors. It would also confront Washington and Europe with a major security test. “We don’t know exactly where it is, the red line where the Russian leadership considers using tactical nuclear weapons,” said Petr Topychkanov, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “The Russian leadership knows the value of ambiguity.” Further complicating efforts to predict Mr. Putin’s actions, Mr. Topychkanov said, is that it is difficult to gauge the nature of Kremlin decision-making. “The biggest question is how rational the Russian leadership is right now,” he said. “I don’t know what kind of information he is getting.” In the days before the invasion, Mr. Putin led an exercise of Russia’s strategic forces, launching some of the country’s most cutting-edge missiles, like the hypersonic Kinzhal. At the start of the invasion he warned of consequences “the likes of which you have never seen in history” if the West intervened. Days later, he stirred concern, ordering his military to ensure the “special combat readiness” of his nuclear forces. While those threats were an overt nod to nuclear warfare, they failed to define where exactly Russia’s red lines are, observers of Russia’s nuclear policy say, giving Mr. Putin more latitude to escalate threats if he feels the need or even strike. The point of a tactical nuclear strike to end a conventional conflict, based on doctrine known as “escalate to de-escalate,” is to change the rules on the battlefield while shifting the burden of escalation onto your opponent, said Elbridge Colby, co-founder of The Marathon Initiative, a policy initiative focused on great-power competition. “Putin could use a smaller warhead to protect what his conventional forces are doing,” he said. “The Ukrainians may be the target, but the real target politically would be the U.S. and the West.” At the height of Cold War tensions, the use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons was never a threat to the U.S. directly, but since the fall of the U.S.S.R., American attempts to establish controls have been rebuffed by the Russians, according to a congressional report published earlier this year. Russia leaned heavily on nuclear arms, including nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapons, in its military thinking, largely because of the decay of the Russian armed forces following the Soviet Union’s collapse. Since Mr. Putin’s military modernization starting in 2008, nuclear arms have remained a military centerpiece, giving Moscow some sense of parity with the U.S. At the same time its store of tactical nuclear weapons has remained high, with between 1,000 and 2,000 warheads, whereas the U.S. has just over 200, around 100 of which are in Europe, the congressional report said. Despite active signaling, Russia has demurred at the idea of using nuclear weapons. Mr. Putin’s spokesman said on CNN that Moscow would use them only under existential threat, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on state television: “We have a very responsible approach to that issue, we never escalate anything.” While the U.S. on one hand has made it clear it has no plans to cross any nuclear red lines in Ukraine—and even canceled a routine test launch of an Air Force Minuteman III missile to avoid escalating nuclear tensions with Russia—Washington has signaled the presence of its nuclear-capable forces in Europe this month. Weeks before the Russian invasion, the U.S. sent B-52 strategic bombers to exercise with British and European air forces. “There’s already some kind of signaling going on in Europe,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. While tactical nuclear weapons could trigger bigger and more powerful strategic weapons in response, Mr. Kristensen said it wouldn’t mean immediate all-out nuclear war. “I don’t think it’s likely to expect an automatic, super-rapid escalation to all-out,” he said. “Both sides will want to look for ways to keep it limited because they both know full well what the consequences are of full escalation.” Analysts said Ukraine would be the most likely target for any tactical nuclear attack, but that escalation after that would be hard to predict, particularly if NATO got involved. “You can’t imagine NATO would just sit by and watch it use nuclear weapons for the first time in 80 years and not do anything about it,” Mr. Kristensen said. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned against letting the war in Ukraine slip into a nuclear conflict and told Russia to stop its nuclear rhetoric. “Russia must stop its nuclear saber-rattling,” said Mr. Stoltenberg last week ahead of a summit of the Western military alliance’s leaders in Brussels. “Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that a nuclear war should never be fought and they can never win a nuclear war.” Write to Thomas Grove at thomas.grove@wsj.com Appeared in the March 28, 2022, print edition as 'Putin’s Warnings Amplify Nuclear Fears'.
OKSANA MARKAROVA,UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES "We heard President Biden loud and clear, that the U.S. will aid and will be with Ukraine in this fight," Markarova told NBC News' 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. "We clearly understand in Ukraine that anyone who's a war criminal, who attacks a neighboring country, who's doing all these atrocities together with all the Russians that are involved definitely cannot stay in power in a civilized world. Now, it's all up to all of us to stop Putin."
