Ukraine’s recent attacks on Russia and Mariupol with American supplied weapons have made the war the first conflict in memory to continuously flirt with nuclear war. Inciting Russia with grave provocation may be fine with the Biden administration that supplied Ukraine with advanced missiles. Power Bic flicking war weaponizing with Russia is more than an obnoxious fly landing on the cake to U.S. observers. It is more than a Covid 19 crisis; it is a continuum of daily threats of nuclear war being ignited by Russian leadership becoming more backed into a corner like an animal hunted down by western-armed dogs of war. People tire of the daily new incident that seems to fan dry winds of nuclear war toward Russia when President of Ukraine Zelinsky orders new actions with weapons upgrades from Pres. Biden. From an American perspective it is wrong to have U.S. security depending on a former comedian-President of a former Soviet Republic going too far riding the tide of western military support eastward.
The Biden administration policy is dangerous to U.S. national security comprising an existential threat that is renewed each day. Sure the administration may back Russia into a corner or even support C.I.A. regime change, there were alternative peaceful policies that could have avoided the entire nuclear war 50-50 scenario though. Maybe some people in their late 70s don’t care that much about survival or peace instead of war enough to select non-violent international relations development.
Cherry scenarios from administration analysists may forsee a western-loyal lawyer like jailed Alexander Navalny becoming the next Russian leader. Regime change hasn’t always worked well for the U.S., or went exactly as planned. The administration has chosen to work with Venezuelan President Maduro instead of the expatriate Guaido though, so even if a regime change were brought into being and Ukraine developed hegemony on the Russian border, the instability of Russia would increase even without a hail-mary Russian nuke attack by the outgoing, embattled President Putin (though Mr. Putin said he isn’t mad (disputed by some in the west necessarily for disagreeing with western policy)).
It isn’t likely that President Putin’s term of office would end peaceably through U.S. machinations. Trust is lacking, and rightly so considering the end of the Cold War 1.0 follow-up, the fate of Saddam Hussein, or that of Moamar Khaddafi who settled affairs with the Bush II administration only to be shellacked by the next Democrat President. There is a strange resonance that the Pan Am Lockerbie bomb maker was renditioned to U.S. custody last Sunday wrapping up one Khaddafi era item. Alternate party politics can alternate international relations policies and approaches to contradict the other’s work. The reversal of Obama-Iran policy during the Trump administrations probably influenced Iran’s decision to supply Russia with drones used in the recent attack on Odessa, and for Russia to supply Iran with advanced weapons. The risk of nuclear weapons prolifferation by a strapped Russia to trade nukes to Iran for military goods may have increased derivatively. Maybe experienced arms trafficker like Victor Bout have clandestine contacts to works such deals.
Pres Putin said he may revise Russia’s nuclear war policy to upgrade it and allow first strikes.
Fortunately for President Biden conservative political opinion has been subdued in social media and large Internet engines like Google, hence formation of anti-administration public political opinon was significantly reduced in the U.S.A. Perhaps the policy of media-social media collusion began during the first year of the Obama administration and increased in power and scale as Democrat political successes in Congress through one-party legislation grew too.