Of course he says no….but actions are telling different story……but here is what he had to say in an op-ed…..
President Biden wrote an op-ed for The New York Times where he sought to clarify his policy on Ukraine. In the piece, the president said that he is not seeking a war between Russia and NATO or regime change in Moscow.
“We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow,” Biden wrote.
“So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces,” he added.
While Biden insists he doesn’t want war with Russia, he also said that he has decided to give Ukraine “more advanced rocket systems and munitions,” likely a reference to the Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) Ukraine has been requesting for months. The MLRS is capable of firing rockets up to 190 miles, but the White House has said the US won’t send long-range rockets capable of striking Russian territory.
(antiwar.com)
“We will not send long-range weaponry….”
Then this story broke…..
The US will supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems to “help it strike enemy forces more precisely from a longer distance,” per the BBC. Ukrainian officials have been begging for longer-range weapons to counter Russian firepower, which has pummeled cities and Ukrainian military positions in the Donbas region for weeks. In a New York Times essay published Tuesday, President Biden said the weaponry will help Ukraine defend itself and strengthen its hand at the negotiating table. Biden also sent assurances to the Russians, writing, “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.”
The announcement comes as critics have piled on in recent weeks, accusing the Biden administration and NATO of “mollycoddling” Russia. Per the BBC, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Tuesday accused the US of “directly and intentionally adding fuel to the fire.” The Washington Post reports that shortly after Biden’s essay was published, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced exercises involving Moscow’s strategic missile forces responsible for “nuclear deterrence of possible aggression.” According to Russian military doctrine, the use of nuclear force is justified “if the Russian state faces an existential threat from conventional weapons.”
The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) that the US will send can deliver satellite-guided munitions nearly 45 miles, outmatching comparable Russian systems. It’s also much easier to reload and more mobile than its Russian counterparts. Per the Times, the US declined to send its most advanced systems, which have a range up to 200 miles, and agreed to send the HIMARS based on Ukrainian promises that the weapons won’t be used to strike Russian territory. President Zelensky reiterated the point in an interview on Newsmax, saying, “We’re not interested in what is happening in Russia. We’re only interested in our own territory.” In related news, Germany announced Wednesday that it will send Ukraine its most advanced air-defense system, the IRIS-T, which “could be deployed to protect whole cities.”
So with that lie exposed the next question should be…how long before Ukraine strikes into Russian territory as retaliation?
Does this endanger NATO?
NATO is splitting over Ukraine…..
European officials told The Wall Street Journal Tuesday that divisions between NATO members on how much support to provide Ukraine have been growing in recent weeks.
On one side, Western European nations led by France and Germany are reluctant to send Ukraine heavy weapons, have maintained dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and are calling for a negotiated solution to end the war.
On the more hawkish side are the US, Britain, and nations in northern and central Europe, including the Baltic states, Poland, and the Czech Republic. These nations want to put more advanced weaponry in Ukraine’s hands and are against talks with Russia, and some have discouraged Kyiv from negotiating a peace deal with Moscow.
The more hawkish view was expressed by Latvian Prime Minister Krisjanis Karins in an interview on Monday. Karins told Politico that “Russia must lose” and warned some of his fellow EU members were wrong to push for a “peace at any cost.”
“The main goal of ours has to be that Russia loses — and the other side of the coin is that Ukraine wins the war. Anything short of that means we have a very bad security situation in Europe,” Karins said.
While there are fractures in NATO, the US is still poised to support Ukraine against Russia in the long term as President Biden recently signed a $40 billion aid package for the Ukrainians. The EU also continues to take steps to cut off Russian energy even as Europeans are feeling the economic pain. On Monday, the EU agreed to a Russian oil ban with some exemptions for pipeline deliveries.
(antiwar.com)
How will this situation end?
Watch This Blog!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”