old salt wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 8:24 pm
Trump was not on the verge of taking us to war with Russia.
He was pacifying Vlad and staying out of his way…..like you said…standing up to Russia doesn’t matter. You were all for laying down….
Trump did not pacify Putin. ...Putin did not challenge Trump.
Trump warned the EU about their dependence on Russian energy & shamed NATO into spending more on defense.
The territory that Russia seized was before Trump came to office.
The military training & weapons the Ukrainians are using to such good effect were provided under Trump.
When Biden took office, he delayed for 3 mos the arms shipments that were approved before the end of Trump's term. Putin did not move on Ukraine while Trump was in office.
Biden’s Comments About Putin Were an Unforced Error
The words of every world leader matter right now, and none more than those of the president of the United States.
By Tom Nichols, MARCH 26, 2022, 8:08 PM ET
Joe Biden has been a model of restraint during the most serious global crisis in nearly sixty years, and thank goodness for that. He has provided assistance to Ukraine while keeping NATO together against the possibility of a Russian attack against the Alliance. He has resisted calls to engage in high-risk escalatory moves—such as a no-fly zone—while inflicting damage on the Russian economy and making clear the depth of America’s outrage at Putin’s war of conquest.
But Biden broke his long streak of message discipline during a speech in Poland today, when he added an apparently unscripted ending: “For God's sake, this man”—meaning Russian President Vladimir Putin—“cannot remain in power.”
The sound that could not be captured by the cameras after Biden spoke was dozens of staffers slapping the palms of their hands against their foreheads. Predictably, the media in America and elsewhere seized on this statement as if it were some new policy or a NATO war aim and asked if the President of the United States was calling for regime change in, of all places, Moscow.
Biden’s staff lamely offered that the president was saying that Putin “cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change.” The United States, as Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, a member of the House intelligence committee, later told CNN, does not have a new policy of regime change, and has no overt or covert programs aimed at such a goal in Russia. But the news cycle was already in full swing, with CNN and others quoting Biden in their chyrons and prodding their guests to speculate on the president’s meaning.
What Biden was doing, of course, was being Joe Biden. He was speaking for all of us, from the heart. One of the more endearing things about the president—at least for those of us who admire him—is that he has almost no inner monologue and regularly engages in the kind of gaffe where a politician says something that is impolitic but true.
This was not the time for such a moment, and even those who think Biden has exhibited sterling leadership during this crisis should admit that the president’s remarks were an unforced error. Putin has already made himself a pariah in the West, and though Biden has been right to call Putin a thug, a butcher, and a war criminal, it is another thing entirely to use language that could be misconstrued by both the American public and the Kremlin as a suggestion that United States is interested in changing the Russian regime.
Biden’s comment was poorly timed, too, because Russia’s high command seems to be preparing for a face-saving retrenchment in Ukraine. So far, the Russians seem to have taken Biden’s remarks more calmly than the American media. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, never one to miss a chance to castigate the United States, said only that this was a question for the Russian people, and not for Biden. The Russian people, of course, have no say in who rules them, but Peskov’s answer amounted to a shrug.
Still, every day that Russia’s unprovoked war of conquest against Ukraine drags on, the danger of escalation to a world-threatening confrontation between East and West remains. Putin, whose strategic aims have now collapsed, might yet murder more Ukrainians in rage at his humiliation. He might try to provoke NATO into an intervention. Any of the four nuclear powers involved in the conflict could make a mistake or fall victim to a misperception. Now is not the time for improvisation.
An international crisis requires steadiness and prudence, and though Biden has shown those qualities in spades, his ad-libbing in Warsaw is a reminder that even small slips pose major risks during tense times. It is especially challenging to stay on message in a 24/7 media environment in which far too many commentators and pundits have already shown an unseemly interest in courting a new World War. When John F. Kennedy was making his way through the Cuban missile crisis, he had only to contend with more easily controlled newspapers and three short newscasts each evening. Biden, by comparison, is living with a Greek chorus of millions offering their commentary and advice—some of it breathtakingly reckless.
It is hard to blame Biden for giving in to his famous temper after talking to the people who have suffered from Putin’s barbarism. But the words of every world leader matter right now, and none more than those of the president of the United States. We should now let his remark pass for what it was—an outburst—and get back to helping Ukraine save its independence.
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
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.
Shortly after the speech, a White House official sought to clarify the comments.
“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia or regime change,” the official said.
Biden’s line was not planned and came as a surprise to U.S. officials, according to a person familiar with the speech who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. In the immediate aftermath of the remark, reporters rushed to find Biden aides and seek clarity on the president seemingly supporting a regime change in Russia.
But Biden aides demurred, refusing to comment as they scrambled to craft a response.
White House officials were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change, but they did concede it was just the latest example of Biden’s penchant for stumbling off message. And like many of his unintended comments, they came at the end of his speech as he ad-libbed and veered from the carefully crafted text on the teleprompter.
“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.”
Over the past few weeks, Biden’s rhetoric on Putin — a man he once recounted telling to his face, “I don’t think you have a soul” — has become increasingly pointed. He has called him a “butcher” “pure thug” and a “murderous dictator.” So saying that he should be removed from power could viewed as the logical next step.
It also is in line with Biden at times articulating policy before his aides are ready. Last week, he called Putin a “war criminal,” which White House aides quickly said was simply him “speaking from the heart.” But within a few days, U.S. policy changed as Blinken also called Putin a war criminal and released a formal assessment on war crimes committed by Russia.
Biden’s comment was particularly striking because his administration has taken pains to avoid even implying that regime change is a goal of the Western response to Russia’s aggression.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state news agencies, “That’s not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians.”
Some officials, both in the U.S. and abroad, said Biden’s comment was an honest acknowledgment of reality — the U.S. will likely never have a normal relationship with Putin after the invasion. But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
He said the remark overshadowed an otherwise relatively smooth trip aimed at building additional support for Ukraine, bulking up additional sanctions enforcement and further unifying NATO allies.
“What’s frustrating about this is, up to now, the Biden administration has conducted itself with significant discipline. … This goes against the grain of their handling of this crisis,” Haas said.
“They obviously recognize that, they walked it back in a matter of minutes,” he added. “The problem is, from Putin’s point of view the president revealed his and our true intentions.”
As president, aides have often worked to keep him on message. Sometimes that means limited exposure in formal settings — he waited longer than any president in at least a century to hold his first formal news conference — and it also means trying to keep him tightly to a script.
But there is little any aide can do when the president decides to extend his remarks and tuck in, almost as an aside, a declaration that he wants to see Putin removed from power.
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
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.
Shortly after the speech, a White House official sought to clarify the comments.
“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia or regime change,” the official said.
Biden’s line was not planned and came as a surprise to U.S. officials, according to a person familiar with the speech who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. In the immediate aftermath of the remark, reporters rushed to find Biden aides and seek clarity on the president seemingly supporting a regime change in Russia.
But Biden aides demurred, refusing to comment as they scrambled to craft a response.
White House officials were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change, but they did concede it was just the latest example of Biden’s penchant for stumbling off message. And like many of his unintended comments, they came at the end of his speech as he ad-libbed and veered from the carefully crafted text on the teleprompter.
“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.”
Over the past few weeks, Biden’s rhetoric on Putin — a man he once recounted telling to his face, “I don’t think you have a soul” — has become increasingly pointed. He has called him a “butcher” “pure thug” and a “murderous dictator.” So saying that he should be removed from power could viewed as the logical next step.
It also is in line with Biden at times articulating policy before his aides are ready. Last week, he called Putin a “war criminal,” which White House aides quickly said was simply him “speaking from the heart.” But within a few days, U.S. policy changed as Blinken also called Putin a war criminal and released a formal assessment on war crimes committed by Russia.
Biden’s comment was particularly striking because his administration has taken pains to avoid even implying that regime change is a goal of the Western response to Russia’s aggression.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state news agencies, “That’s not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians.”
Some officials, both in the U.S. and abroad, said Biden’s comment was an honest acknowledgment of reality — the U.S. will likely never have a normal relationship with Putin after the invasion. But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
He said the remark overshadowed an otherwise relatively smooth trip aimed at building additional support for Ukraine, bulking up additional sanctions enforcement and further unifying NATO allies.
“What’s frustrating about this is, up to now, the Biden administration has conducted itself with significant discipline. … This goes against the grain of their handling of this crisis,” Haas said.
“They obviously recognize that, they walked it back in a matter of minutes,” he added. “The problem is, from Putin’s point of view the president revealed his and our true intentions.”
As president, aides have often worked to keep him on message. Sometimes that means limited exposure in formal settings — he waited longer than any president in at least a century to hold his first formal news conference — and it also means trying to keep him tightly to a script.
But there is little any aide can do when the president decides to extend his remarks and tuck in, almost as an aside, a declaration that he wants to see Putin removed from power.
This comment was consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking. It's a non-event, and is important to studied diplomats and the feckless people wo want to criticize the President. To the rest of us, it is a statement of near unanimous aspiration: with him in charge of the Russian government, no sovereign on or near his border is safe from meddling, cyberstrikes and military force.
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
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.
Shortly after the speech, a White House official sought to clarify the comments.
“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia or regime change,” the official said.
Biden’s line was not planned and came as a surprise to U.S. officials, according to a person familiar with the speech who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. In the immediate aftermath of the remark, reporters rushed to find Biden aides and seek clarity on the president seemingly supporting a regime change in Russia.
But Biden aides demurred, refusing to comment as they scrambled to craft a response.
White House officials were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change, but they did concede it was just the latest example of Biden’s penchant for stumbling off message. And like many of his unintended comments, they came at the end of his speech as he ad-libbed and veered from the carefully crafted text on the teleprompter.
“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.”
Over the past few weeks, Biden’s rhetoric on Putin — a man he once recounted telling to his face, “I don’t think you have a soul” — has become increasingly pointed. He has called him a “butcher” “pure thug” and a “murderous dictator.” So saying that he should be removed from power could viewed as the logical next step.
It also is in line with Biden at times articulating policy before his aides are ready. Last week, he called Putin a “war criminal,” which White House aides quickly said was simply him “speaking from the heart.” But within a few days, U.S. policy changed as Blinken also called Putin a war criminal and released a formal assessment on war crimes committed by Russia.
Biden’s comment was particularly striking because his administration has taken pains to avoid even implying that regime change is a goal of the Western response to Russia’s aggression.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state news agencies, “That’s not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians.”
Some officials, both in the U.S. and abroad, said Biden’s comment was an honest acknowledgment of reality — the U.S. will likely never have a normal relationship with Putin after the invasion. But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
He said the remark overshadowed an otherwise relatively smooth trip aimed at building additional support for Ukraine, bulking up additional sanctions enforcement and further unifying NATO allies.
“What’s frustrating about this is, up to now, the Biden administration has conducted itself with significant discipline. … This goes against the grain of their handling of this crisis,” Haas said.
“They obviously recognize that, they walked it back in a matter of minutes,” he added. “The problem is, from Putin’s point of view the president revealed his and our true intentions.”
As president, aides have often worked to keep him on message. Sometimes that means limited exposure in formal settings — he waited longer than any president in at least a century to hold his first formal news conference — and it also means trying to keep him tightly to a script.
But there is little any aide can do when the president decides to extend his remarks and tuck in, almost as an aside, a declaration that he wants to see Putin removed from power.
This comment was consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking. It's a non-event, and is important to studied diplomats and the feckless people wo want to criticize the President. To the rest of us, it is a statement of near unanimous aspiration: with him in charge of the Russian government, no sovereign on or near his border is safe from meddling, cyberstrikes and military force.
But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
Not sure how anyone can possibly disagree with this...he fecklessly said (and interesting you're referring to Haas as "feckless"?).
To claim "consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking" certainly does not make it correct and frankly a good reason to speak/act otherwise. Diplomacy backed by discreet military support is the only answer to pulling world back from brink of WW3, not cocksure rhetoric from a POTUS with a dubious foreign policy record, who IMO, has done a pretty good job with Ukraine until now...perhaps due to indecision/dithering disguised as sound judgment? I hope that's not actually the case.
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
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.
Shortly after the speech, a White House official sought to clarify the comments.
“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia or regime change,” the official said.
Biden’s line was not planned and came as a surprise to U.S. officials, according to a person familiar with the speech who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. In the immediate aftermath of the remark, reporters rushed to find Biden aides and seek clarity on the president seemingly supporting a regime change in Russia.
But Biden aides demurred, refusing to comment as they scrambled to craft a response.
White House officials were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change, but they did concede it was just the latest example of Biden’s penchant for stumbling off message. And like many of his unintended comments, they came at the end of his speech as he ad-libbed and veered from the carefully crafted text on the teleprompter.
“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.”
Over the past few weeks, Biden’s rhetoric on Putin — a man he once recounted telling to his face, “I don’t think you have a soul” — has become increasingly pointed. He has called him a “butcher” “pure thug” and a “murderous dictator.” So saying that he should be removed from power could viewed as the logical next step.
It also is in line with Biden at times articulating policy before his aides are ready. Last week, he called Putin a “war criminal,” which White House aides quickly said was simply him “speaking from the heart.” But within a few days, U.S. policy changed as Blinken also called Putin a war criminal and released a formal assessment on war crimes committed by Russia.
Biden’s comment was particularly striking because his administration has taken pains to avoid even implying that regime change is a goal of the Western response to Russia’s aggression.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state news agencies, “That’s not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians.”
Some officials, both in the U.S. and abroad, said Biden’s comment was an honest acknowledgment of reality — the U.S. will likely never have a normal relationship with Putin after the invasion. But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
He said the remark overshadowed an otherwise relatively smooth trip aimed at building additional support for Ukraine, bulking up additional sanctions enforcement and further unifying NATO allies.
“What’s frustrating about this is, up to now, the Biden administration has conducted itself with significant discipline. … This goes against the grain of their handling of this crisis,” Haas said.
“They obviously recognize that, they walked it back in a matter of minutes,” he added. “The problem is, from Putin’s point of view the president revealed his and our true intentions.”
As president, aides have often worked to keep him on message. Sometimes that means limited exposure in formal settings — he waited longer than any president in at least a century to hold his first formal news conference — and it also means trying to keep him tightly to a script.
But there is little any aide can do when the president decides to extend his remarks and tuck in, almost as an aside, a declaration that he wants to see Putin removed from power.
This comment was consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking. It's a non-event, and is important to studied diplomats and the feckless people wo want to criticize the President. To the rest of us, it is a statement of near unanimous aspiration: with him in charge of the Russian government, no sovereign on or near his border is safe from meddling, cyberstrikes and military force.
But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
Not sure how anyone can possibly disagree with this...he fecklessly said (and interesting you're referring to Haas as "feckless"?).
To claim "consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking" certainly does not make it correct and frankly a good reason to speak/act otherwise. Diplomacy backed by discreet military support is the only answer to pulling world back from brink of WW3, not cocksure rhetoric from a POTUS with a dubious foreign policy record, who IMO, has done a pretty good job with Ukraine until now...perhaps due to indecision/dithering disguised as sound judgment? I hope that's not actually the case.
Diplomacy and State Dept. are worthless. It’s Hillary’s fault. Easier to let Vlad do what he wants…..heard it for four years when Trump was in office. It’s The Euroburghers problem….standing up to Russia doesn’t matter.
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
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.
Shortly after the speech, a White House official sought to clarify the comments.
“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia or regime change,” the official said.
Biden’s line was not planned and came as a surprise to U.S. officials, according to a person familiar with the speech who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. In the immediate aftermath of the remark, reporters rushed to find Biden aides and seek clarity on the president seemingly supporting a regime change in Russia.
But Biden aides demurred, refusing to comment as they scrambled to craft a response.
White House officials were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change, but they did concede it was just the latest example of Biden’s penchant for stumbling off message. And like many of his unintended comments, they came at the end of his speech as he ad-libbed and veered from the carefully crafted text on the teleprompter.
“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.”
Over the past few weeks, Biden’s rhetoric on Putin — a man he once recounted telling to his face, “I don’t think you have a soul” — has become increasingly pointed. He has called him a “butcher” “pure thug” and a “murderous dictator.” So saying that he should be removed from power could viewed as the logical next step.
It also is in line with Biden at times articulating policy before his aides are ready. Last week, he called Putin a “war criminal,” which White House aides quickly said was simply him “speaking from the heart.” But within a few days, U.S. policy changed as Blinken also called Putin a war criminal and released a formal assessment on war crimes committed by Russia.
Biden’s comment was particularly striking because his administration has taken pains to avoid even implying that regime change is a goal of the Western response to Russia’s aggression.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state news agencies, “That’s not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians.”
Some officials, both in the U.S. and abroad, said Biden’s comment was an honest acknowledgment of reality — the U.S. will likely never have a normal relationship with Putin after the invasion. But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
He said the remark overshadowed an otherwise relatively smooth trip aimed at building additional support for Ukraine, bulking up additional sanctions enforcement and further unifying NATO allies.
“What’s frustrating about this is, up to now, the Biden administration has conducted itself with significant discipline. … This goes against the grain of their handling of this crisis,” Haas said.
“They obviously recognize that, they walked it back in a matter of minutes,” he added. “The problem is, from Putin’s point of view the president revealed his and our true intentions.”
As president, aides have often worked to keep him on message. Sometimes that means limited exposure in formal settings — he waited longer than any president in at least a century to hold his first formal news conference — and it also means trying to keep him tightly to a script.
But there is little any aide can do when the president decides to extend his remarks and tuck in, almost as an aside, a declaration that he wants to see Putin removed from power.
This comment was consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking. It's a non-event, and is important to studied diplomats and the feckless people wo want to criticize the President. To the rest of us, it is a statement of near unanimous aspiration: with him in charge of the Russian government, no sovereign on or near his border is safe from meddling, cyberstrikes and military force.
But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
Not sure how anyone can possibly disagree with this...he fecklessly said (and interesting you're referring to Haas as "feckless"?).
To claim "consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking" certainly does not make it correct and frankly a good reason to speak/act otherwise. Diplomacy backed by discreet military support is the only answer to pulling world back from brink of WW3, not cocksure rhetoric from a POTUS with a dubious foreign policy record, who IMO, has done a pretty good job with Ukraine until now...perhaps due to indecision/dithering disguised as sound judgment? I hope that's not actually the case.
We can agree to disagree on this. I was not referring to Haas as feckless; he was the "studied diplomat" in that sentence; most of the GOP -- which doesn't know what it wants save for a way to criticize the President -- are the "feckless" to which I was referring. I don't think anything Biden said will hasten WW3, or preclude an off-ramp if one exists, or make Putin any more or less malleable. I've said before here, the West is at a Rubicon of sorts; if it wilts in the face of Russian adventurism in the name of "restoration" of the former empire, then our daughters and sons will grow up and old in a world in which military might and willingness to use it, rather than a rules-based international order, will prevail. Biden's comment is just an inartful but accurate way of saying that.
It remains a profound embarrassment to this forum that there are still some pro-Putin and pro-Russian shills hawking Russian propaganda points.
It is always important to remember that the fault for this completely unnecessary war lies with Russia and its fascist, incompetent leader, Vladimir Putin.
After Russia’s initial failures, Putin has simply doubled down on the war effort, with the Kremlin dampening hopes of an off-ramp through peace talks. Russian authorities appear to be preparing for a long, bloody campaign, drumming up domestic unity through a propaganda blitz, as the military intensifies its pressure on Ukraine.
The way this war is going, President Biden and President Zelenskyy may ultimately bring Putin and Russia to their knees.
However, this horrific war may not end before Putin commits even more atrocious war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction indiscriminately against Ukrainian civilians.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 9:05 am
It remains a profound embarrassment to this forum that there are still some pro-Putin and pro-Russian shills hawking Russian propaganda points.
It is always important to remember that the fault for this completely unnecessary war lies with Russia and its fascist, incompetent leader, Vladimir Putin.
After Russia’s initial failures, Putin has simply doubled down on the war effort, with the Kremlin dampening hopes of an off-ramp through peace talks. Russian authorities appear to be preparing for a long, bloody campaign, drumming up domestic unity through a propaganda blitz, as the military intensifies its pressure on Ukraine.
The way this war is going, President Biden and President Zelenskyy may ultimately bring Putin and Russia to their knees.
However, this horrific war may not end before Putin commits even more atrocious war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction indiscriminately against Ukrainian civilians.
tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 7:30 am
Not sure how anyone can possibly disagree with this...he fecklessly said (and interesting you're referring to Haas as "feckless"?).
To claim "consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking" certainly does not make it correct and frankly a good reason to speak/act otherwise. Diplomacy backed by discreet military support is the only answer to pulling world back from brink of WW3, not cocksure rhetoric from a POTUS with a dubious foreign policy record, who IMO, has done a pretty good job with Ukraine until now...perhaps due to indecision/dithering disguised as sound judgment? I hope that's not actually the case.
Agree.Biden has handled this well so far, but this was a mistake. Hopefully, it's a correctable mistake. Look how fast American spokesmen backpedalled on Biden's gaffe. Reporters will ask him about it in the coming weeks....hopefully he corrects this mistake.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:02 am
Diplomacy and State Dept. are worthless. It’s Hillary’s fault. Easier to let Vlad do what he wants…..heard it for four years when Trump was in office. It’s The Euroburghers problem….standing up to Russia doesn’t matter.
Stand up to Russia & get a war that destroys Ukraine & killls or displaces millions. You should be happy now.
It is the EUroburgers problem. They are still the ones who need Russia's energy & are funding his war.
They also need our 82nd Airborne on the border to protect them while they have still yet to deploy their Response Force.
Maybe the comment will end up being one of those things used in the off ramp..."you get to stay in power" [[as far as WE'RE concerned]]...maybe, not so much the feeling of Russian hierarchy looking at this debacle and thinking the same thing...the effect of Biden's moves to decimate the Russian economy is really starting to take hold and it IS being noticed, felt, and will really start to sway internal politics (such as they are) inside Russia.
Ronnie Rayguns, the US Congress and other partners SPENT the Cold War to an end...it's interesting that our economic might, in the end, might bring about a similar result...
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
This comment was consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking. It's a non-event, and is important to studied diplomats and the feckless people wo want to criticize the President. To the rest of us, it is a statement of near unanimous aspiration: with him in charge of the Russian government, no sovereign on or near his border is safe from meddling, cyberstrikes and military force.
But the bigger worry may be that, in the short term, Biden’s rhetoric could escalate tensions and make any diplomatic off-ramp harder to find.
“There ought to be two priorities right now: ending the war on terms Ukraine can accept, and discouraging any escalation by Putin. And this comment was inconsistent with both of those goals,” said Richard Haas, a veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It discourages Putin from any compromise essentially — if you’ve got everything to lose, it frees him up. Why should he show any restraint?” Haas added. “And it confirms his worst fears, which is that this is what the United States seeks. His ouster and systemic change.”
Not sure how anyone can possibly disagree with this...he fecklessly said (and interesting you're referring to Haas as "feckless"?).
To claim "consistent with the way almost of the world is thinking" certainly does not make it correct and frankly a good reason to speak/act otherwise. Diplomacy backed by discreet military support is the only answer to pulling world back from brink of WW3, not cocksure rhetoric from a POTUS with a dubious foreign policy record, who IMO, has done a pretty good job with Ukraine until now...perhaps due to indecision/dithering disguised as sound judgment? I hope that's not actually the case.
We can agree to disagree on this. I was not referring to Haas as feckless; he was the "studied diplomat" in that sentence; most of the GOP -- which doesn't know what it wants save for a way to criticize the President -- are the "feckless" to which I was referring. I don't think anything Biden said will hasten WW3, or preclude an off-ramp if one exists, or make Putin any more or less malleable. I've said before here, the West is at a Rubicon of sorts; if it wilts in the face of Russian adventurism in the name of "restoration" of the former empire, then our daughters and sons will grow up and old in a world in which military might and willingness to use it, rather than a rules-based international order, will prevail. Biden's comment is just an inartful but accurate way of saying that.
To the Russian population, the Chinese, the non-aligned world & other govts skeptical of the US, this validates exactly what Putin has been claiming about the US fomenting regime change in Ukraine AND in Russia.
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:14 pm
Trump warned the EU about their dependence on Russian energy & shamed NATO into spending more on defense.
Yes....he told Putin and the World that NATO was weak.
Not the smartest move, no?
The World was smart enough to figure that out on their own
Yeah, except that's what I said----that it was obvious------ when Biden told the world that we wouldn't go to war over Ukraine. You still hammered him for this.
Can't have it both ways. Trump wasn't perfect, OS.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:02 am
Diplomacy and State Dept. are worthless. It’s Hillary’s fault. Easier to let Vlad do what he wants…..heard it for four years when Trump was in office. It’s The Euroburghers problem….standing up to Russia doesn’t matter.
Stand up to Russia & get a war that destroys Ukraine & killls or displaces millions. You should be happy now.
It is the EUroburgers problem. They are still the ones who need Russia's energy & are funding his war.
They also need our 82nd Airborne on the border to protect them while they have still yet to deploy their Response Force.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:02 am
Diplomacy and State Dept. are worthless. It’s Hillary’s fault. Easier to let Vlad do what he wants…..heard it for four years when Trump was in office. It’s The Euroburghers problem….standing up to Russia doesn’t matter.
Stand up to Russia & get a war that destroys Ukraine & killls or displaces millions. You should be happy now.
It is the EUroburgers problem. They are still the ones who need Russia's energy & are funding his war.
They also need our 82nd Airborne on the border to protect them while they have still yet to deploy their Response Force.
I am. Life is good. Aren’t you happy?
Not about this. I am depressed & angry. It is the only news on which I can still focus.
Much of what we served for & accomplished during the Cold War has been pizzed away & we are now closer to the brink of WW (with nukes) than we have been at any time since 1962 (imo). Life is not good for the people of Ukraine & the innocent Russian conscripts being fed into this meat grinder.
I'm happy for you that you find it a source of humor & just more fodder for political smack talk. Enjoy. Thanks for asking.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:02 am
Diplomacy and State Dept. are worthless. It’s Hillary’s fault. Easier to let Vlad do what he wants…..heard it for four years when Trump was in office. It’s The Euroburghers problem….standing up to Russia doesn’t matter.
Stand up to Russia & get a war that destroys Ukraine & killls or displaces millions. You should be happy now.
It is the EUroburgers problem. They are still the ones who need Russia's energy & are funding his war.
They also need our 82nd Airborne on the border to protect them while they have still yet to deploy their Response Force.
I am. Life is good. Aren’t you happy?
Not about this. I am depressed & angry. It is the only news on which I can still focus.
Much of what we served for & accomplished during the Cold War has been pizzed away & we are now closer to the brink of WW (with nukes) than we have been at any time since 1962 (imo). Life is not good for the people of Ukraine & the innocent Russian conscripts being fed into this meat grinder.
I'm happy for you that you find it a source of humor & just more fodder for political smack talk. Enjoy. Thanks for asking.
You assessment is something that has been going on for YEARS under both Democratic and Republican administrations which Is why I suspect that your criticism of Joe Biden's role is a bit slanted based upon your general disdain of all Democratic Presidents for the past 20 years. You claim to not be a former DOPUS supporter but you sure appear to have given him a very large pass on his role (with all the others) leading up to the current situation.
