Why Does It Seem Biden Is Prolonging The Ukraine War?
As Ted Carpenter writes on Antiwar.com, it sure seems like the Biden Administration is doing all it can to prolong the war in Ukraine. Sending weapons that have little chance of making a big difference in the outcome only keeps the fighting and killing going strong, and the Administration has shown no interest in pushing a quick diplomatic end to the war. On the contrary, Biden openly calling for regime change and a war crimes trial makes diplomacy nearly impossible. Why prolong the fighting? US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan gave us a hint, when he told NBC News over the weekend that the US wants " a weakened and isolated Russia."
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
Today we do not have internet, but we're with you audio and we will bring you a message.
Daniel, good to see you here today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
I'm doing fine.
And we want to talk about the prolongation of the war.
You'd think that this talk now, there's people writing about it being deliberate.
And most of the time, it's just ineptness.
And it both occurs.
Just think of they never had to say, well, you know, when we were going in Iraq, we're going to have it 19 years and counting.
And then in, well, in Afghanistan, 20 years sounds like a pretty good idea.
We'll just keep it going.
But we were able to suggest that when you go to war under these conditions, the wars aren't declared.
The enemies are not clear to anybody.
The real reason why they're at war is never spoken out loud.
And so it doesn't take a giant, intellectual giant to say, you know, this is prolongation.
There's going to be a lot of pain and suffering.
It's going to be long-lasting.
And neither side's going to be happy about it.
And problems will linger.
And I always assumed that would happen with what we were doing in the Middle East.
But I was, quite frankly, a little surprised.
They went 20 years and we're still there.
You know, when they say we leave, we don't really leave.
We stay there.
And that's a reflection of empire building and maintaining empires, maintaining the military-industrial complex.
So you can expect this to happen.
So we shouldn't be really surprised.
But I do have some questions about, you know, I want to know why, why, why.
And there's still, I don't think all the whys are answered, but there's a few in here that gives us a hint exactly what's going on.
But when you try to figure out Zelensky and explain exactly what he's doing one day versus the next, but couldn't we say the same thing about Biden?
What's Biden's policy?
You know, we can't figure that out either.
But we'll do our very best to try to bring people up to date about the status of this war, because I don't think this war is going to go away easily or gracefully.
And it'll probably expand if we don't change our policies.
You know, that's the big if.
It could go away easily, not gracefully because it's too late for that, but the war could be over very quickly if it weren't.
And, you know, we're referring, the backbone of our discussion today is really a piece that Ted Carpenter did for anti-war.com called Is the Biden Administration Trying to Prolong the Ukraine War?
And as always, it's an excellent piece by Ted.
Ted and anti-war deserve support for it.
But Ted brings some important points that are not brought in the mainstream media.
The mainstream media is obsessed with showing horror stories, with putting blame, with making it all about Putin and Biden and what have you.
What Ted is talking about is the human suffering that's going on, and he's wondering why is the U.S. doing very little to stop the human suffering.
In fact, what the U.S. doing is prolonging and expanding the suffering.
And he points out that the real goal appears to be bleeding Russian forces and inflicting a defeat on its great power adversary, regardless of the cost to Ukraine.
And that's why Ted says that's why they're pouring in weapons, stingers, javelins, suicide drones, which prolong the conflict.
They're tactical weapons.
They don't change the strategic situation on the battlefield, but they prolong the suffering.
And as we mentioned yesterday, Dr. Paul, they're awfully good for the military industrial complex.
Slovakia sends a few old Soviet tanks, a few old Soviet anti-air missiles over in the U.S., buys some nice Patriot missiles to replace them.
But all this does at the end of the day is prolong the war, which Ted very wisely, I think, points out could have been a very, very quick war that was over, that was over very quickly with a peace deal that would have lasted.
But that doesn't seem to be what they want.
You know, it is said that when two countries go to war, both sides make a mistake by not interpreting the enemy correctly.
They say, oh, yeah, if we do A, they're going to do B, and it's going to be over in six months.
Some of them believe it, and sometimes it's just propaganda.
But I think this concept of bleeding Russia is doomed to fail, except maybe for a couple special interests.
But even that is just temporary.
Eventually, everybody gets caught up and they will get punished for it.
But this idea of bleeding Russia, I think is very risky because the way I see it, Daniel, is the bleeding comes the basic American people, American taxpayers, the American soldiers, so unnecessarily.
We haven't been attacked.
We weren't attacked in this century.
And yet, think of how many people we were involved in in killing and how many coups we've been involved in.
And we were always going on protecting our Constitution, protecting our national security, bringing about peace to the world, being humanitarians.
And thank goodness that people are starting to wake up just like they have with COVID.
And they are not as blindly led to trust everything the government tells us because it's realized eventually that they're not leveling with us.
But, you know, in the 60s, they played this game too.
And the one thing is they play on the patriotism.
It was amazing to me after I went to Washington in the 70s, there were still people there that if you were in a quiet conversation, they would say, you know what?
We should have, if they were challenging me on my foreign policy, they'd say, we should have cleaned up that mess in Vietnam.
We should have been there and complained about it.
So there's this macho attitude, too, that keeps it going.
But there's a lot of reasons why we're there.
I can't think of any really good reason why we're there.
The one point that Ted makes in the piece is that the U.S. really is showing no support for diplomacy.
They have not said a single encouraging word to Zelensky to sit down, to encourage him to sit down.
They've done nothing to help to facilitate diplomacy.
And as Ted says, on the contrary, Biden is directly combative toward Russia in this whole thing, which is making diplomacy more difficult.
Regardless of what you think about it, first of all, he makes the gaffe, supposedly a gaffe, that Putin can't remain in power.
And then he says there needs to be a war crimes trial for Putin for what's happened in Ukraine.
All of these things, whatever you think about how true they are, they make diplomacy very difficult and a critical time where lives could be saved.
Ted also makes the point that it's a little hypocritical for Biden to call for war crimes trial for Putin over Ukraine when you look back on things like Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, which were all invasions of countries that had neither attacked us nor threatened us.
And also the only way for Putin to stand trial would be if he's overthrown.
So there's another implicit call for the overthrow of the Russian government.
That seems to be the goal here.
And it seems to be, as you wrote, Dr. Paul, a few weeks ago, that the U.S. wants to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian.
Zelensky still is a bit of a mystery unless you look between the lines.
Because now, with all this mess over there, he's suggesting that he's no longer willing to renounce his country's ambition to join NATO.
Well, isn't that good?
You know, that's where the problems came from.
He was being forced to say that and join NATO, and that he should accept a neutral status with multiple guarantees.
Well, that's nonsense.
You know he's not going to do it.
You know he's not serious.
And it just won't happen.
But it seems like the message, at least, from maybe our government and Zelensky, even though the bottom line usually deals with weapons, for Zelensky to say he wants independence and he wants to have an independent-minded foreign policy, he's really beholding, begging and pleading on his knees, send me more weapons,
send me more weapons, still with a refusal of saying, you know, the greatest sin he could commit, according to him, would ever be to recognize the history of Crimea.
But that's one thing, you know, that's it.
That's probably the most likely thing that people would look to for, thinking about maybe there should be a new balance on that.
Maybe there should be self-determination.
There could be a case made for that.
But that's the one he's the strongest opposed to or makes the most noise about.
Well, ironically, you know, as we talk about an independent Ukraine, that was the deal that Yanukovych was about to sign with Putin when he was overthrown in 2014.
Contrary to what revisionist history would say, the agreement he was going to sign with Russia was not an exclusive agreement.
It was not, you are going into our camp and you will be part of us.
It was an independent Ukraine signing an aid package with Russia and an investment package with Russia.
And Putin was explicit at the time saying you can have your deals with the EU as well.
That's what they had on the table.
And that's what they may eventually get now eight years later in so many thousands of lives.
But you talk about Zelensky.
He's a person in a very bad position right now.
First of all, his more extreme Nazi forces in Ukraine, the Azovs and other, they hate his guts.
They want him dead.
The rank and file military, to a degree, also hates his guts because, and we've seen some messages coming out of Ukraine, they feel that they've been left high and dry in places like Mariupol and increasingly in Donbass, where they don't have any backup and they're going down.
The Americans don't care either way.
They couldn't care less about Skelensky, despite the fact that he's portrayed as being a hero on TV.
That's a PR stunt.
Ironically, the only person who really wants Zelensky alive is Putin because he needs someone to sign a peace deal with.
So it's a very odd situation where the two of these people need each other the most and everyone's doing their best to keep them apart and keep them from making a deal.
You know, even Obama is chiming in because they need, they're not doing so well.
And Obama is saintly, looking more like a saint.
So they brought him in to do some talking.
And he might introduce the notion that maybe he will be the diplomat that will pull this together.
So he did a great job with Syria.
You know, I think it was Assad has to go business.
Now it's Putin has to go.
So they continue.
But, you know, that's more talk.
But we know that the sincerity of self-determination and true diplomacy doesn't exist.
They're ready to sacrifice a lot.
And I do believe that sometimes they believe, even though they're willing to allow so much tragedy, they're willing to convince themselves that, you know, it's not going to be that bad.
We can handle this.
And then at the same time, here we're presenting the case that maybe they really don't care.
And maybe the strategy is to continue it and to build this division.
We see that happening in economic policy.
We see East against the West in the central banking competition.
And we see that domestically here in this country, how Marxism is raising its ugly head.
And I think this is the same thing.
The enemies are lining up.
This is like they're lining up for the major battle.
And economically, I see this lining up.
Who will come down on the side of having the most to say about the World Central Bank?
And in this case, it's the lining up here, East versus West.
And he said, oh, yeah, you know, it's no, it's Putin against all Ukrainians.
Well, maybe it's Russia against the coups committed by NATO.
But, you know, you don't hardly ever see any criticism except by some of our friends that maybe 2014 was a significant year,
which precipitated this and stirred this up and really brought it to the forefront because people were not dying before the 14th until they had an installed government by NATO and it violated all the so-called promises made to Russia that no, we're backing off.
And yet even today we read stories, more NATO troops coming closer to the border, doing exactly the opposite if they had a drop of interest in a little bit of diplomacy.
Well, you know, we asked the question, why is the U.S. seeming to prolong the war?
And I think, interestingly enough, Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor to President Biden, provides an answer in very clear language.
And this is via anti-war.com.
This is Sullivan on Meet the Press on Sunday.
This is a very interesting and very important statement.
He says, we need to keep giving them, Ukraine that is, support, military support and strong economic sanctions to improve their position, their posture at the negotiating table.
But at the end of the day, what we want to see is a free and independent Ukraine, a weakened and isolated Russia, and a stronger, more unified and determined West.
Gathering Evidence of War Crimes00:02:10
That is an admittance that the real goal, the real reason to prolong this war with these tactical weapons that won't change the realities on the battlefield is to advance a weakened and isolated Russia.
This is a U.S. war against Russia.
Jake Sullivan openly admitted it on the weekend talk shows.
And the president is stirring the pot continuously.
He really says he's involved in gathering more evidence of the war crimes.
Well, war crimes had to be tended with.
And there was a lot of controversy of dealing with the war crimes of some very, very bad Nazis, and not just getting them in a crowd and shooting them.
But he wants a war crimes trial.
And I got to think, because civilians are being killed.
That would be his main argument.
Look at all the bombs.
And some of that did occur.
But my argument is if you're going to have a war trials, I think the defense should put up the number it will do this century.
How many criminal war charges would be legitimate during the last 22 years of military operations by the various countries?
How many civilians have been killed?
And I don't think the American people would want to see those statistics because as bad as it is over there right now in Ukraine, when you look at what happened in Iraq, if you look at what's happened in Afghanistan and elsewhere, I mean, we have to take some responsibility for what's going on in Yemen.
You know, they were our bombs and our money.
So it's that basic principle of understanding people working for diplomacy and working always toward peace versus, you know, stirring the pot to make sure that there's violence and who's going to be in charge of the next empire.
Well, I'll just close by Dr. Paul by giving a little update on our conference, June 4th in Houston.
Conference Endorsement00:02:25
Go to ronpaulinstitute.org on the upper right-hand side.
You'll see all the information.
I was surprised, Dr. Paul, you know, you're never sure when you put something on.
Is there going to be any interest?
If you build it, will they come?
Well, I'm happy to say that just in just 24 hours of ticket sales, we've sold over one-third of the entire available amount of tickets.
And we've got about one-half of the entire available host committee sponsorships that have been taken up.
So there's a big interest in this conference.
I really urge everyone to get your tickets while you can because I'm pretty sure they'll sell out.
They always have in the past.
The Biden doctrine, New World Order, or Nuclear Armageddon.
It's going to be a hot conference.
So check it out.
And thanks for listening.
Very good.
And I, of course, want to endorse that and endorse the conference.
But I do want to make a point that I do have rules about conferences.
And my rule is that though we will be talking about very serious matters, just as we have today, you know, war and destruction of property and the destruction of so much and lie, so much lie and everything going on.
We spend all this time on exposing that.
But the conference, the one thing I noticed, and if you make an effort to it, the conferences should be designed to study and read about the serious stuff, anticipate what could happen, describe what can be done in a positive way, and find friendship with other people who are like-minded and agree with it.
And generally, you don't have to direct people to do that.
When we have these conferences and the conferences I've attended over the years, when you're with a group of people who are like-minded, it's not like the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
There's a little bit more friendship there, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Matter of fact, it helps makes all this bearing possible.
We can bear with this.
There are times that I get tested, sort of like listening to the nonsense that just recently went on with the war against COVID, because the overwhelming evidence on the side of the bureaucrats that wanted to lock down, and that's still alive.
Philadelphia, they're going to expose it.
Lock everybody in their houses again.
So, yeah, we have that, but we still can get together, and I hope to see a lot of you there at our conference.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.