United States aid to Ukraine will cost the world dearly — Biden is leading the country to World War III
Explaining the reasons why the US president policy regarding the conflict in Ukraine is disastrous not only for the country, but also for the whole world
The United States, without a doubt, is a kind of regulator of international relations between countries. Such a role is quite logical, given the dominant position of the United States in the global political and economic system, including a leading role in NATO and a huge influence on the decision-making process of the leaders of European countries.
However, sometimes there is a situation when you need to stop and think — is it worth interfering in the course of certain events? What can this or that policy lead to especially when it comes to such a dangerous matter as war?
Recently, there has been a feeling that the decisions taken by the Biden administration indicate that the United States is not only ready for a potential escalation of the global nuclear conflict, but also strongly supports its occurrence.
“We haven’t faced a potential Armageddon offensive since the Kennedy presidency and the Caribbean crisis.”
Joe Biden
Realizing all the risks of unleashing an international deadly war, Biden only declares that diplomacy should be at the forefront, but at the same time continues to personally pump Ukraine with weapons and refuse any contacts with the president of Russia. It is necessary to understand for what purpose the president and his administration are implementing such a policy, and why such actions can aggravate the situation in the world to a dangerous limit.
What about financial aid?
Let’s turn to the numbers right away.
In 2022, since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the amount of financial assistance provided by the United States amounted to more than 52 billion euros. If we take all the money provided to Ukraine by other countries, then this amount will be less than all US aid. Based on these indicators, several logical questions arise that concern a half of American citizens.
Let’s start with the fact that the Biden administration is spending 52 billion euros (and this is not even the limit) to maintain the conflict in Ukraine instead of offering the governments of the warring states a platform and opportunities for negotiations among themselves. Pursuing his own interests, Biden is pouring huge amounts of money into this war, which does not save the lives of civilians, but only encourages further deaths of population, hiding behind false statements that he is concerned about the fate of the Ukrainian people. For some reason, the President did not worry about the fate of Yugoslavia when he proposed bombing Belgrade in 1998.
“I suggested bombing of Belgrade. I suggested that American pilots go there and destroy all bridges on Drina.”
Joe Biden
It looks like Biden is not such a peacemaker. What about the civilians of Afghanistan? The country was simply left at the mercy of the Taliban, however, in the official statement of the White House, the operation was presented as a thorough success. That’s just about the amount of military equipment worth a total of $7 billion left on the territory of the country, Biden kept silent.
A threat to the whole world?
If the weapons supply to Ukraine is presented by the government only to help Ukrainian citizens in the struggle for their freedom, then Russia assesses the situation completely differently. Vladimir Putin seriously talked about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the conflict to protect his own territory. Such rhetoric became more frequent after the explosion on The Crimean Bridge connecting the territorial part of Russia with the Crimean peninsula.
While the United States is supplying more and more weapons to Ukraine (the latest aid package provides for the allocation of $725 million, including ammunition for advanced HIMARS missile systems), contributing to further escalation of the conflict, Putin is seriously thinking about using Russia’s nuclear arsenal. After these statements, the only question arises.
Joe, what are you thinking about?
Frankly speaking, the world is on the verge of the Third World War, and this is no longer perceived the way it was at the beginning of the war in Ukraine when it was assumed that the warring parties would be able to come to peace. Now the Biden administration is seriously thinking about a possible nuclear apocalypse, buying radiation medicines worth $290 million. Indeed, why would you think about a diplomatic solution to the conflict when you can just buy pills for radiation sickness and wait for Armageddon? It is hard to believe that the government is not working to solve this problem, but everything is going to the fact that the war unleashed by the confrontation of political elites — and not only by Russia and Ukraine — will end in a global catastrophe.
Now there is still an opportunity to prevent such an outcome. But, as it seems, the Biden administration is not interested in this. Too keen on the course of its foreign policy aimed at weakening Russia by prolonging this conflict, the government led by the Democrats forgets about its own people and the risk they expose American citizens to.
It should be noted that President Biden himself is not interested in a potential dialogue with Russia. In a recent interview with CNN, he said that he “has no intentions of meeting with Putin at the G20 summit unless it concerns the potential release of basketball player Britney Griner.” It is commendable that the US President remembers the woman who is in custody in Russia, but it is surprising that only this issue is in the attention of the American government.
In addition, according to unconfirmed information at the moment, the White House is going to prevent a potential meeting between Biden and Putin at the upcoming G20 summit, justifying this with media considerations — allegedly the US president should not be captured in the same photo with a “murderer and a war criminal.” Amazing, isn’t it? The heads of State have the best opportunity to discuss all the pressing issues, especially at a time when the world is on the verge of irreparable events that can still be prevented. And at this time, the leader of the most powerful country in the world will hide from the cameras, fearing the possibility of being in the same frame with Putin? It even sounds ridiculous; it’s hard to imagine that such a thing can really happen.
Imagine for a second what the reaction of the public would be if, for example, President Trump refused a potential meeting with Putin — he would simply be torn apart by the media for cowardice. Without a doubt, the liberal media are not going to cover such decisions of President Biden.
It’s amazing — first you hide from the cameras, and then the world is on the verge of nuclear war. This is the reality of modern American democratic politics.
Politicians are sounding the alarm
An illustrative case occurred in May, when Kentucky Senator Rand Paul single-handedly blocked the allocation of a $40 billion military aid package to Ukraine.
“No matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United states of America. We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
Rand Paul
Moreover, House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, who at the beginning of the conflict advocated active support and provision of Ukraine with weapons and aircraft, eventually shifted the emphasis towards domestic politics and said that assistance to Ukraine would not be the primary task of the Republicans if they receive a majority in the upcoming congressional elections.
“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically. Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check.”
Kevin McCarthy
It could be assumed that such statements are given, published and replicated only on the eve of elections, when it is necessary to get more votes. This is a classic technique, and its use could be allowed in this case, if there were no real facts behind McCarthy’s statements — the amount of aid to Ukraine is huge, and how long will it last, provided that the conflict becomes protracted?
The fact that Republicans do not approve the actions carried out by the Biden administration does not surprise anyone. At the same time, the president’s policy fully satisfies most of the members of the Democratic Party. But not all of them. Tulsi Gabbard, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii, announced that she was leaving the Democratic Party.
“The Democrats of today are hostile to people of faith and spirituality. They demonize the police and protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans. The Democrats of today believe in open borders and weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents. Above all else, the Democrats of today are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.”
Tulsi Gabbard
A change of political party at such a high level is an extremely rare case, especially at a time when the confrontation between Democrats and Republicans is most acute. At the same time, Gabbard has never been distinguished by loyal rhetoric both towards her former party and President Biden. She associates the latter with Adolf Hitler altogether, comparing their similar way of thinking.
“I’m pretty sure they all believe they’re doing what’s best. Even Hitler thought he was doing what was best for Germany, right? For the German race. In his own mind, he found a way to justify the means to meet his end.
So when we have people with that mindset, well, you know we’ve got to do whatever it takes, because, as President Biden said in that speech in Philadelphia, that those who supported Trump, those who didn’t vote for him are extremists and a threat to our democracy.”
Tulsi Gabbard
What do citizens think?
A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that Americans who were previously serious about supporting Ukraine in the conflict with Russia are gradually tilting their opinion in the opposite direction. So, if in May the percentage of people surveyed showed that 66% of the population approved of arms supplies to Ukraine, in September this figure dropped to 55%.
These data relate not only to the part of the population that supports the Republicans (among whom 64% supported the supply of weapons to Ukraine in May, and only 46% in September), but also to those who are going to vote for the Democrats in the upcoming elections — the indicator of their support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine has been steadily decreasing since March, having decreased from 77% to 65%.
Most of the facts suggest that Americans are increasingly feeling concerned for their own lives. Without a doubt, the White House has similar data. The question is the following ‑ is the government going to do anything about it?
Any state structure should be distinguished by flexibility and the ability to respond in a timely and correct manner to the changing conditions of the political situation both in the country and in the world. Now the United States is on the verge of starting a major conflict, which is only fueled by the actions of representatives of the Democratic Party and President Biden in particular. Of course, the government’s support for the conflict in Ukraine is an attempt to strengthen its own already powerful influence on world events. However, the price that President Biden can pay for this is very high.
The possibility of using nuclear weapons is not a myth, not a legend, but a cruel reality with which we have to exist. At the same time, when it is possible to prevent such actions, it is necessary to take all steps for a constructive dialogue, and it is not so important who your critics will consider you to be if you offer the belligerents to make concessions. You will be remembered as a peacemaker. But instead of assuming this role, Biden is carrying out his brutal policy, encouraging further killings of civilians. He will probably have to take responsibility for a possible nuclear crisis.
