Biden approves Ukraine’s use of long-range U.S. weapons inside Russia, reversing policy

My assessment is this was ostensibly in response to Russia’s latest blitz against Kyiv. But in reality I think this was a decision that Biden was always going to make after the election, no matter who won.

BTW, why haven’t we moved this thread under the main Ukraine War thread? I was criticized for suggesting all of the “Trump Sucks” threads could be consolidated into one. Same principle here. It’s the same topic, and we don’t need multiple threads on the same topic filibustering the front page.

 

Think Trump green lighted or asked Biden to do this?

 

Appreciate what you mean, but the Ukrainians did not have deep-strike weapons then, so the point would have been moot.

 

Shhh. Don't bust up his MAGA fantasy. You know what happens when the kids find out Santa Claus isn't real.

 

Nah, it was the "deep state". Keep rolling with that.

 

I have been surprised by less, but in this case I bet not. As I said above, I think Biden was always going to do this post-election, so even if Trump reached out and said do it, I think Biden would have just found that mildly interesting. It does give Trump more leverage in the future negotiations he has in mind, so I suppose that’s a reason: “Hey, Putin, I didn’t authorize those deep attacks on your territory, but I am the guy who can scale them back or even turn them off if you come to the table and play ball.”

 

Just sayin'. They needed everything from the start. The time to take ground was in those months after the failed initial invasion. They were never getting anything substantial after that, and especially after the Russians had 7 months to dig in while we advertised a "counter offensive". Further complicating things for the vacillating Biden administration were MAGA clowns attacking from the left.

I'm still angry. It never should have been allowed to get to this point and I blame both sides for this.

 

There’s a bit more to the framework he has in mind, but if your point is that it would not be acceptable to Ukraine, then that is correct. It also would not be acceptable to Russia, which is a point I’ve often tried to make. The sides are too far apart at the moment, and Russia needs to suffer a bit more to be pliable. But the reason I support talks along this framework is so that everyone can see, especially the far right and far left, that a diplomatic solution is not in reach yet and that Russia is the side most vulnerable to pressure at the moment. It isn’t enough for those two facts to be true; some of the stakeholders out there who think peace is in reach need to see that it’s true.

 

You know I am in violent agreement, my friend. I launched another of my emotional philippics against Jake Sullivan just yesterday along those lines.

 

Off topic, but I read his "Foreign Policy for the Working Class". I was told this was some great piece of thinking, but all it is is word salad and the same vacillating tone. Sums up what drives me crazy about the Ds. Jack of all Trades, master of none. Try to please everyone, piss off everyone. One foot in, one foot out. . . . etc. Sometimes you just have to take a stand, make a move and stop trying to be everything to everyone. How many battles were won because one side just decided to take action? Too many to count.