Amid escalating tensions in Ukraine, the competence and direction of US foreign policy under President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and CIA Director Burns come under severe scrutiny. Their approach often seems like a farce, reminiscent of a Saturday Night Live sketch rather than a serious geopolitical strategy. When Blinken talks tough, many wonder if there's a ventriloquist behind the rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Biden appears adrift, struggling to navigate simple geriatric issues—let alone effective leadership. Burns warned everyone of Russian redlines in 2008, but no one listened. However, before Biden's presidency was marred by cognitive decline, he was known for allegiance to his own political interest and personal controversies.
He embodies the stereotypical politician—semi-skilled in public speaking but lacking originality, depth of knowledge or a concern for the truth.
Holding down Obama's third term, Biden's critics argue he has failed to meet even basic expectations. Average Americans perceive a radical left pushing divisive woke agendas under the guise of Biden, while the political establishment continues to puppet master war on taxpayer dollars.
Amidst these controversies, the recent bombing of Crimea stands out as a tragic symbol of dysfunction within the administration. On June 23, Russia accused the United States of being responsible for a Ukrainian attack on the Russian-annexed Crimean peninsula, though it has cautioned restraint several times before.
The attack involved five U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, killing four people, including two children, and injuring 151 more. The Russian Defence Ministry claimed that four of the missiles, equipped with cluster warheads, were shot down by air defense systems, and the fifth detonated in mid-air.
Recommended
So why would Biden, in his twilight years, send America to war? Is he even aware that he's taking orders from other forces? Adding to the dysfunction is Blinken, whose mere appearance exposes a lack of gravitas. His corporate boardroom background does little to inspire confidence in foreign policy matters.
Despite his Ivy League education, Blinken is exposed as lacking the clarity and integrity expected of a leader in his position.
The current state of affairs reflects a broader societal malaise—a decline in historical character, particularly concerning foreign affairs. Many lament the country's slide into what they perceive as an era of historical amnesia and geopolitical naivete. The recurring clashes and saber-rattling with Russia underscore the dangers of such ignorance at the highest levels of government.
The Biden-Blinken administration's failures have been evident since their arrival in 2020 but largely ignored. Their tenure illustrates a disconnect between America's leadership class and its people—a mix of entrenched bureaucrats clinging to power and Ivy League elites disconnected from real-world consequences.
The United States may have once prided itself on overcoming tyrants and terrorists, but today it grapples with internal strife, mounting debt, mental fatigue, and a pervasive sense of disillusionment on self-identity. The implications of these leadership failures are profound, as the country grapples with internal division, external threats, and a growing sense that the United States is astray.
As President Biden lacks a cohesive vision for its role on the global stage, this is felt acutely in places like Ukraine, and the EU where US involvement has raised tensions with Russia to dangerous levels. Critics argue that the current administration's policies are not only ineffective but also dangerously provocative. By sending mixed signals and engaging in brinkmanship, Biden and Blinken risk uncovering Russian resolve and escalating conflicts that could have nuclear consequences.
The bombing of Crimea as military support to Ukraine, to bolster its defenses has opened the door to a potential apocalypse.
Moreover, the administration's playing chicken with their international alliances and diplomatic relations has been largely ignored. NATO's role in the region has become increasingly complex, with member states divided over the appropriate response to Russian aggression. The United States’ ability to lead effectively within this alliance framework is undermined by the lack of support by the American people.
In conclusion, the bombing of Crimea serves as a doomsday reminder of the risks posed by incompetent leadership marked by a lack of strategic foresight. As the United States confronts these challenges, it must veer toward a principled approach to peace in global affairs. The path forward demands new leadership to reestablish America's role as a global leader and to restore the United States’ credibility.
We require a new cast on the world stage to safeguard our interests and security.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member