Even in retirement, former Congressman Ron Paul continues to offer incisive commentary on American foreign policy.
The three-time presidential candidate had harsh words about Joe Biden’s recent trip to Poland. Paul argued that “This may have been the most disastrous – and dangerous – presidential overseas trip ever.”
The former Congressman provided some context to Biden’s visit, which is key to understanding the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Because contrary to the corporate media’s depictions of events, the leadup to this great power politics tragedy is not a question of good vs. evil.
Paul observed that “The U.S. and its NATO allies have repeatedly proclaimed that ‘protecting Ukraine’s democracy’ has never been about threatening Russia.”
By never shelving the concept of NATO membership and continuing to send billions of dollars of military gear to Ukraine, the US contributed to escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Despite being elected to supposedly overturn the flawed foreign policy consensus in DC, Trump made the latter move of sending military aid to Ukraine. In addition, Paul called attention to the US setting up “CIA training camps in eastern Ukraine, where paramilitaries were trained on U.S. weapons systems.”
While Russia is no angel, the US exacerbated a Slav-on-Slav on conflict by taking the side of Ukraine and using it as a pawn against Russia. Now, it’s on the edge of falling into the abyss of a prospective nuclear conflict.
Biden has made a series of frightening comments, which Paul highlighted:
But at every stop, President Biden seemed to undermine the narrative his own administration had carefully crafted. First up, warning that Russia might use chemical weapons in Ukraine, Biden promised it would “trigger a response in kind,” meaning the U.S. would use chemical weapons as well. That would be a serious war crime.
Curiously, National Security Advisor Sullivan had to walk back Biden’s chemical weapon response comments.
More shockingly, in a speech before the 82nd Airborne in Poland, Biden said that US troops would soon be deployed to Ukraine. He told troops, “you’re going to see — you’re going to see women, young people standing — standing the middle of — in front of a damn tank, just saying, ‘I’m not leaving. I’m holding my ground.’”
In comical fashion, the administration had to walk back Biden’s comments again, with a White House spokesman allaying people’s concerns by stating that, “the president has been clear we are not sending U.S. troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position.”
To cap things off, Biden gave a final speech in Warsaw, Poland where he gave the whole game away. Namely, he revealed that regime change was the end goal for Russia. He said before his audience, “for God‘s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
Like clockwork, Biden’s team did damage control. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tried to explain away Biden’s inflammatory comments, “I think the president, the White House, made the point last night that, quite simply, President Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else.”
Paul cut through the BS and explained what Biden really meant:
No, that’s not what he said. The president has a leading Constitutional role in the formation of U.S. foreign policy, and he said in a public speech that regime change in Russia is U.S. policy. Any attempt by his staffers to try to explain it away looks terrible: either the president has no idea what he’s saying so we should not take seriously what is essentially a declaration of war on Russia, or the president took the opportunity on the border with Ukraine to essentially declare war on Russia.
Paul added that previous American presidents made their fair share of gaffes, but they paled in comparison to Biden’s remarks:
Presidents Reagan, Ford, and Bush Jr. were all known for their gaffes. Some were funny and some were serious. But none of them declared war on a nuclear-armed adversary in that adversary’s own backyard and then afterward had to send out staff to explain that the president didn’t mean what he just said.
There are certain factions with the American Deep State who desperately want Putin out of power. While Putin is no school boy, what makes people think that whoever his replacement will be is any better? In a hypothetical regime change scenario, it’s likely that his replacement could end up being more hawkish and cunning.
After all, in Russian politics, Putin is a moderate. Western media’s constant demonization of his intentions notwithstanding, Putin is generally not as hawkish as other figures such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of Liberal Democratic Party, who wants to basically resurrect the Russian Empire. There are lots of unintended consequences when it comes to interventionism and the US should not try to guess what they are by playing with regime change fire.
Frankly, the US needs to throw in the towel and realize that this is not a proxy war worth getting into. This is a conflict for Russia and Ukraine to handle, with Europeans potentially playing a mediatory role.
However, it looks like the US is going to goad Ukraine into further conflict with Russia and fight until the last Ukrainian. A terrible sight to see but that’s where we’re at with this corrupt ruling class.
