Lying Was the Only Plan Biden, U.S. Ever Had in Ukraine
After nearly two years of pretending "victory" was coming, the president and a senior advisor finally admit the reality of Ukraine's dilemma. On the hawks who cried wolf
A series of remarkable events with enormous consequences for Ukraine tumbled in rapid succession this week, lifting the veil on years of untrammeled and proud — yet ultimately purposeless and sociopathic — lying by the Biden administration and the Pentagon about the war there.
First, ahead of a crucial vote on military aid to both Ukraine and Israel Wednesday, Joe Biden went on TV to denounce Republicans for threatening to halt the $110 billion national security package. GOP leaders had told the White House they wouldn’t support the bill without border-sealing assurances of the type they knew Democrats wouldn’t accept, so Biden was cornered and clearly pissed. Eyes snapped wide open as the (surely fantastic) drugs aides must pump in by the gallon before public appearances kicked in, Biden went off:
“Republicans think they can get everything they want without any bipartisan compromise,” he snapped. “And now they’re willing to literally kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield and damage our national security in the process.”
He added futher apocalyptic comment:
If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there… If Putin attacks a NATO ally… Then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today. American troops fighting Russian troops… Extreme Republicans are playing chicken with our national security, holding Ukraine’s funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies…
Seconds later, the Commander-in-Chief shifted gears to note he was of course very willing to play that game of chicken. “I’ve made it clear that we need Congress to make changes to fix what is a broken immigration system, because… we all know it’s broken… I’m willing to do significantly more…”
A few hours later, National Security spokesperson John Kirby upped the ante, telling ABC reporter Selena Wang that not only should we be contemplating deployment of American troops, but a possible cost in American “blood” if Putin is allowed to take Ukraine and threaten other NATO countries. (That potential cost has been the same since NATO was founded in 1949, but whatever). Kirby’s offhand observation that Ukraine would “lose this war” absent U.S. support was the actual big news, but Kirby’s “based Biden” comments about “blood” were the ones that went viral:
The blood warning didn’t take. Soon after, Senate Republicans voted against proceeding with debate on Joe Biden’s National Security Package, leaving the upper chamber cleaved at 49-51. The sticking point for Republicans was the $61 billion for Ukraine, which Mitt Romney of all people said they wouldn’t get “unless the border is secure.” (Romney was last seen scoffing that “the idea that [the Ukraine war is] too expensive is a little funny.”) One GOP caucus member after another came out practically wearing nightmares of stampeding MAGA hordes on their faces. Even Mitch McConnell, as if to stall the zombie attack, tried weakly to do a Steve Bannon impersonation, saying “Border security is national security.” Bernie Sanders, showing oddly belated willingness to dagger his onetime presidential opponent, also withheld support, balking over $14 billion for Israel.
After that bang-bang-bang succession of events, proclamations of imminent doom for Ukraine issued from the mouths of every Western national security official and war-supporting politician within reach of a microphone. Then Tucker Carlson tweeted a report that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told House members in a classified briefing that if they didn’t approve more money for Ukraine, “we’ll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight Russia.”
The weirdly personal threat, which Tucker insists is a verbatim quote, showed how desperate a moment this is for the national security state. Potential consequences extend far beyond loss and suffering for Ukraine. The entire interventionist project is looking at a setback on the scale of the Iraq disaster, a political fiasco so enormous it prompted four years of cuts to the defense budget. Watching Putin waltz across Ukraine after the last two years of blood, profligate spending, and premature end zone celebrations by retired brass and Beltway think-tankers would make the withdrawal from Afghanistan look like one of Biden’s tarmac stumbles by comparison.
This was the big one, the all-in move, and what happened in the Senate might be the fatal river card. There are a lot of people tied to the defense world who’ll be looking for jobs in very short order if the Republicans Austin was threatening do the unthinkable and let the sentiment of voters interfere with Pentagon desires. Think of the unconscionable precedent that would set! It can’t be countenanced, which is why things are about to get real on the Hill. Don’t be surprised if there are some head-scratching conversions ahead. They will empty the oppo folders to get this one done.
In any case, Tucker’s report drew instantaneous condemnation from Jennifer Griffin at Fox News, a rock-solid-dependable groveling NatSec mouthpiece whose niche is being the GOP answer to Natasha Bertrand or Ken Dilanian. Griffin tweeted one of the most tortured denials I can remember:
This characterization of Austin’s remarks is 100 percent not true, acc to two sources who were in the briefings. Austin warned that it is not hyperbole to say Putin won’t stop at Ukraine. If he enters NATO territory US troops could be called to fight; cheaper to fund Ukraine now.
What does “this characterization of Austin’s remarks is 100 percent not true” mean? Carlson didn’t “characterize” anything, he quoted Austin. Unless she’s talking about the phrase “openly threatening Americans,” and claiming “we’ll send your uncles, cousins, and sons to fight” isn’t a threat, then her report sounds more like confirmation than a denial to me. Did Austin say it or didn’t he? She should clear that up, because from where I sit, “Putin won’t stop” and “cheaper to fund Ukraine now” sound like the characterizations to me.
Not many people actually believe the U.S. will end up in a shooting war with Russia if Ukraine falls, which is why I’m skeptical these threats will land with the Bannonites causing this upheaval, though they might scare the actual members of congress. However, Austin, Kirby, and Biden did tell one truth this week that the public will believe. The only problem is, it’s something that exposes the White House and Defense Department for having lied almost without interruption for nearly two years. Biden saying the U.S. is the only reason Ukraine hasn’t been “overrun,” and Kirby imploring that Ukraine will “lose this war” without us, are stark turnarounds from everything we’ve been told since early 2022.
Biden himself has repeatedly insisted things like “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia, never” and as recently as July was saying Russia had “already lost” the war. Hell, in June, Biden got so excited, he announced Putin was even losing the “war in Iraq.”
The PR campaign about how swimmingly the war is going has been multi-pronged. First, keep every alternative site’s content out of programs like Google News, but fill it with sunny Atlantic Council updates (“American support for Ukraine stays strong!”) and interviews with soul-of-credibility types like ex-spy Christopher Steele, who went on Sky News in July to inform us that “Russia has almost abandoned the war militarily.” Second, have lots of former generals give interviews saying victory is at hand (my favorite was Ben Hodges telling Newsweek in October that Ukraine was “running rings” around the Russians). Third: write stories about battlefield victories whenever they happen, e.g. “Senior Leadership Among Those Killed in Strike on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet,” but take the day off when the news isn’t good.
Click the image above OR click HERE to download our annual report in PDF.
We are in the first major fundraising campaign in our history. We have raised $3168 from 33 donors with a goal to raise $50,000 from 150 donors by December 31st. The true number is higher because many people have supported us by “Going Paid” on Substack, which we appreciate and encourage! If you value having an articulate voice for voluntaryism, will you please consider making a donation today by “Going Paid” OR ArtOfLiberty.org/Sponsor? - Etienne de la Boetie2