Biden declares ‘Kyiv stands’ in surprise visit to Ukraine

Source: AP.

President Biden’s visit to Kyiv is doubly surprising. First because it was unexpected, and second because recent think tank reports have been sounding caution alarms over escalation of the war against Russia.

Did Biden go to Kyiv to show the flag, or to deliver unpleasant news?

I worry that Poland is planning to front a NATO coalition that will enter Ukraine to fight the Russians directly. This would be consistent with a show-the-flag visit. On the other hand, the White House may have decided that it is time to begin the process of ending the war. This would be consistent with a delivery-of-unpleasant-news visit.

Either way, I expect Biden’s bellicose and defiant rhetoric will continue, at least for the time being.

39 thoughts on “Biden declares ‘Kyiv stands’ in surprise visit to Ukraine

  1. I think it is most likely exactly what it seems to be – a show of solidarity and support. Sometime a leader say exactly what he means . . .

    “One year later, Kyiv stands, and Ukraine stands. Democracy stands. The Americans stand with you, and the world stands with you.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Sometime a leader say exactly what he means . . .”

      Except in this case, Kyiv, Ukraine and democracy are not “standing.”

      Like

      1. Except in this case, Kyiv, Ukraine and democracy are not “standing.”

        With all due respect, that is nothing but fascist wishful thinking. Ukraine under the resolute leadership of its DEMOCRATICALLY selected President is very much still standing. Denying the obvious truth of that no matter how badly you want Putin to succeed is simply foolishness.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. …”but we are now being told that Kiev could lose in a matter of weeks if drastic measures are not taken. ”

          We were also told, probably by the same commentators, that Kyiv would fall in days … A YEAR AGO.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “We were also told, probably by the same commentators, that Kyiv would fall in days … A YEAR AGO.”

            A year ago, the commentators I was following were pointing out that the Russian forces surrounding Kyiv were insufficient to storm the city. When I shared those commentaries, pro-war Forum users derided them as propaganda.

            Like

          1. Sorry, I’m not inclined to equate Biden’s rhetoric with reality. The question at hand is the purpose of his visit to Kyiv. Given the think tank reports I have shared in this Forum, and the fact that Russia has been making territorial gains on the battlefield every day for the last couple of months, I suspect a change in policy has occurred.

            Like

          2. “Sorry, I’m not inclined to equate Biden’ rhetoric with reality. ”

            You don’t have to do that. Just quit being a damn fool and accept the FACT that Ukraine is still standing. Denying that FACT because Biden asserts that FACT could not be more childish.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “Just quit being a damn fool and accept the FACT that Ukraine is still standing. ”

            OK. Ukraine is still standing. That is, 70% of it, on paper.

            Like

          4. “OK. Ukraine is still standing. That is, 70% of it, on paper.”

            Gee, that was not so hard, was it? Only took about three exchanges before you dropped most of the childish nonsense. Better late than never, though.

            70%?
            Glad to see you include Crimea in your count of Russia’s military occupations. President Zelensky would agree. Reversing Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea has become a condition of peace with the new Russian regime that is on its way.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. A new Russian regime may be inevitable — eventually — but not one we get to choose and not on our schedule. Also, I think it unlikely that any of Russia’s territorial gains in the former Ukraine can be reversed short of nuclear war.

            Is that what you want?

            Like

  2. At some point, the world needs to decide whether to accept Putin’s behavior.

    Bottom line is that he wanted to get Ukraine back in the fold, and Ukraine balked. Then since Ukrainians were able to defend itself with EU and US support, Putin has decided to destroy the entire country acre by acre using conscripted cannon fodder, missiles and artillery.

    And propaganda feeds the narrative that this is all Ukraine’s doing. If only they would get on their knees and become subjects of the Russian dictatorship, all would be just peachy. Stalin murdered 4 million Ukrainians. I think the moment Ukraine was able to escape the Soviet empire in 1991, that ended any thoughts of reunification with Russian dictatorship. Understandably to even the most obtuse.

    Putin wants to extend his borders to the EU, but considers Ukraine’s friendliness towards Europe a threat. That dog doesn’t hunt in the most favorable of interpretations. In other words, Putin wants Ukraine because he wants Ukraine, period.

    Now he looks like an incompetent loser and lashes out with massive bombardment. In a world that supposedly recognizes national sovereignty as sacrosanct, we are somewhat ambivalent in this case. Putin loves that, of course.

    He is saying : “I got your sovereignty right here, screw you all.”

    Oh, and “I got nukes”.

    In dog training, the rule is don’t reward for bad behavior or it will continue. If Putin wins, the we are giving permission to every dictator to do as they please. Including Putin or his successor.

    Every dog has its day. Putin’s passed long ago when he failed to take Ukraine in 5 days.

    IMO

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “At some point, the world needs to decide whether to accept Putin’s behavior.”

      There is some truth in that. The problem is, “the world” doesn’t have a choice.

      Like

          1. “Putin IS forcing his will on us and Ukraine at present.”

            Now you are just playing with words. Pointlessly. I would say that is an admission that your claim that we have no choice but to accept Putin’s aggression cannot be defended in any logical or rational way. You did not even try.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “I would say that is an admission that your claim that we have no choice but to accept Putin’s aggression cannot be defended in any logical or rational way.”

            I made no such claim. I agreed with Mr. Rothman’s point that the world must decide how to respond to Putin’s behavior by pointing out that we have no choice but to decide.

            I disagree, however, with demonizing Putin and Russia, as those actions on our part make it more difficult to find a resolution to the conflict that serves our national interests.

            Like

          3. “I made no such claim.”

            Except when you said . . . The problem is, “the world” doesn’t have a choice.
            And later when you defended that by saying that Putin has already imposed his will on us and Ukraine.

            Laughable but typical. Say something kind of dumb and then deny you said it.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. I made no claim that Russia’s “aggression” (your word) must be accepted.

            What a tap dance! You wrote what you wrote. Just own it for Christ’s sake.

            If Russia’s invasions of Ukraine is not “aggression” what is it?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “Is that what you want?”

            No rational person wants nuclear war. But as the best armed and best prepared nation in the world to fight and “win” such a war, we cannot allow an otherwise pitiful country like Russia to buffalo us in to acceptance of their aggression without serious consequences.

            Whatever happens in Ukraine, Russia is now and for a long time to come dead to us. Kind of like Cuba or North Korea.

            Liked by 3 people

          6. RE: “Whatever happens in Ukraine, Russia is now and for a long time to come dead to us. Kind of like Cuba or North Korea.”

            What you mean is that the U.S. is decisively not the controlling power in the world. We’ll see how that works out.

            Like

  3. IMHO, the Daily Beast has a very good explanation for Biden’s trip to Ukraine.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/bidens-trip-to-kyiv-is-the-ultimate-humiliation-for-putinand-trump?ref=scroll

    (If you don’t want to sign up for a free subscription to read the article, you can use the “12ft Ladder” to read it. https://12ft.io/)

    The trip was a message to Putin: “To Vladimir Putin, it was Biden’s way of saying, “I am here in Kyiv and you are not. You not only did not take Kyiv in days as some predicted, but your attack was rebuffed. Your army suffered a humiliating defeat from which it has not recovered…”

    “In sending this message, Biden pointedly evoked without mentioning his name yet another American president in a visit to the Eastern edges of Europe: Donald Trump during his 2018 Helsinki meeting with President Vladimir Putin. Biden went to Europe to send Putin a message of American and allied strength. Trump went to grovel before Putin. Biden stood up for American values and our allies. Trump said he trusted Putin more than America’s own intelligence and law enforcement services. Biden embodied America’s strength. Trump illustrated and represented our greatest weakness.”

    NATO is now stronger than it has ever been and, thanks to Putin’s folly, NATO is growing.

    Rothkopf says Trump’s gross, subservient behavior in Helsinki probably “encouraged Putin to undertake his ill-fated, hugely costly, profoundly ill-considered invasion last February.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “NATO is now stronger than it has ever been and, thanks to Putin’s folly, NATO is growing.”

      NATO hasn’t actually grown in the last year, and various commentators I follow have been talking about a NATO breakup. The reason?

      NATO support for the war in Ukraine is compromising its own military readiness. Germany is unhappy that it lost the Nord Stream pipelines. Trade relations between Europe and China will fray if the U.S. imposes more sanctions. & Etc.

      Like

      1. Both Sweden and Finland have applied to join NATO. The only “no” vote was Turkey. And given Turkey’s current need for help because of an earthquake crisis, I suspect they can be persuaded to change their vote.

        Those commentators you follow were also saying Ukraine would fall in days/weeks/months/a year or two. You need to follow better commentators.

        NATO’s reason for having military readiness is/was/and always has been, to defend itself against Russian aggression. I know. I lived in Germany for two years and I can assure you EVERY military exercise was planned around Russia. Ukraine is fighting Russian aggression. That is in no way compromising NATO’s military readiness. It is complementing NATO’s readiness.

        China could not be more pleased with US sanctions on Russia. They are buying Russian oil at hugely discounted prices because of sanctions on Russia.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “Those commentators you follow were also saying Ukraine would fall in days/weeks/months/a year or two.”

          No, they weren’t.

          RE: “Ukraine is fighting Russian aggression. That is in no way compromising NATO’s military readiness. It is complementing NATO’s readiness.”

          NATO’s military readiness is compromised by a lack of ammunition, because Ukraine consumes more than NATO countries can produce.

          https://www.newsweek.com/nato-allies-would-run-out-ammunition-within-days-war-russia-report-says-1780851

          RE: “China could not be more pleased with US sanctions on Russia. They are buying Russian oil at hugely discounted prices because of sanctions on Russia.”

          Not the point. European countries like Germany as suffering economic blowback from western sanctions on Russia. If U.S. sanctions increase, Europe’s economic suffering will also increase. This is a potential cause of the breakup of NATO.

          Like

          1. “No, they weren’t.”

            So you were lying about what they were telling you? Since February of 2022 you have been telling us that your sources were saying Russia was winning. Bigly.

            NATO’s strength is relative to possible attackers. That ammunition you cite has been used to decimate NATO’s only credible threat – fascist Russia which has lost at least half of its tanks and uncounted thousands of people. Your ammunition argument cuts harder against Russia. It has used up just about all of its ammunition and must turn to other failed countries for help. And, of course, when the dust settles, NATO will have grown by at least three countries.

            As for NATO breaking up – don’t hold your breath.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “ Despite the pressure Western nations may feel about increasing weapons production, Reno noted that “Russia is faced with an even worse crunch of this sort.”

            Your link. It also describes the increases in production to meet future needs. And, importantly, that those increases are in the works or planned. I am not worried about industrial powerhouses like the NATO countries not being able to ramp up production.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Laughing out loud again.

      I have extensively googled this Rage Against The War rally. It appears that the reason it did not get much reporting was because it was a flop. There were not “thousands” of people. It was in the hundreds. Not surprising given the clown show of crackpots and extremists featured.

      Even the far right GatewayPundit managed to tell the truth about the turn out but you couldn’t?

      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/rage-against-the-war-machine-ron-paul-tulsi-gabbard-jimmy-dore-roger-waters-for-peace/

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Do you want a website battle?

        Some sites say hundreds, others thousands.

        The real time video streams I saw yesterday from participants certainly looked like thousands, but in any case, there were enough to warrant coverage.

        Anything that brings the LP and the People’s party together should be concerning to the war parties.

        Like

        1. “Do you want a website battle?”
          I’ll take the several web sites I found that reported turnout in the hundreds versus your imaginary ones. Thanks.

          And, why are you whining? The MSM covered it. Fox News both promoted and covered it. Tucker Carlson couldn’t get enough of it.

          Face it. It was a flop. And, as mentioned, that is not too surprising given the kind of people who were behind it and who spoke. Crackpots, extremists, and full time Putinistas.

          And, by the way, they are in the wrong capital. They should be protesting in Moscow. I wonder why not.

          Liked by 3 people

  4. You are right, Paul. It was hundreds, not thousands. In Don’s imagination, it was the “biggest inaugural crowd ever.” Ron Paul was there. Ron counts for 2,000 in Don’s book.

    And it was more of a pro-Russian rally than an anti-war rally. People who are genuinely concerned about war typically protest against the country that started the war. These people were waving Russian flags.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s