https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries as a
home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

The NYtimes framed the incident as a slip or a veiled threat. The Atlantic called it an unforced error.

My take: Language and intention have been circulating among Biden and his close advisors for a while. IF the US hasn't made the final decision, it is a threat. The question is "Why Now?" IF it does reach a decision, the question is whether such
disclosure is timely?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 2:04:50 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries as a

home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

The NYtimes framed the incident as a slip or a veiled threat. The Atlantic called it an unforced error.

My take: Language and intention have been circulating among Biden and his close advisors for a while. IF the US hasn't made the final decision, it is a threat. The question is "Why Now?" IF it does reach a decision, the question is whether such

disclosure is timely?

Biden read from the prepared speech goes to show that it is not a slip up or an unforced error. It is intended to show the power dynamics of America supremacy to exert influence and control to the audiences. It is American power to admonish a leader of
another big power and not an appeal of regime change. It is not easy for big power to appeal for regime change of another big power. If the other power is a small and weak power, then such admonishment remark could mean an appeal for regime change, a war
is inserted..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:04:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries as a

home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

The NYtimes framed the incident as a slip or a veiled threat. The Atlantic called it an unforced error.

My take: Language and intention have been circulating among Biden and his close advisors for a while. IF the US hasn't made the final decision, it is a threat. The question is "Why Now?" IF it does reach a decision, the question is whether such

disclosure is timely?

Niall Fugerson's take on how the Russo-Ukraine conflict: The only end game now is the end of Putin regime.

"According to Sanger, who cannot have written his piece without high-level sources, the Biden administration “seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential
paths to de-escalation … CIA officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units, according to American officials. But as of now, Mr. Biden and his staff do not see the utility of an
expansive covert effort to use the spy agency to ferry in arms as the United States did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union during the 1980s.”

Reading this carefully, I conclude that the U.S. intends to keep this war going. The administration will continue to supply the Ukrainians with anti-aircraft Stingers, antitank Javelins and explosive Switchblade drones. It will keep trying to persuade
other North Atlantic Treaty Organization governments to supply heavier defensive weaponry. (The latest U.S. proposal is for Turkey to provide Ukraine with the sophisticated S-400 anti-aircraft system, which Ankara purchased from Moscow just a few years
ago. I expect it to go the way of the scuttled plan for Polish MiG fighters.) Washington will revert to the Afghanistan-after-1979 playbook of supplying an insurgency only if the Ukrainian government loses the conventional war.

I have evidence from other sources to corroborate this. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official was heard to say at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia]
will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations. ...

I gather that senior British figures are talking in similar terms. There is a belief that “the U.K.’s No. 1 option is for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin.” Again and again, I hear such language. It helps explain, among other
things, the lack of any diplomatic effort by the U.S. to secure a cease-fire. It also explains the readiness of President Joe Biden to call Putin a war criminal."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-22/niall-ferguson-putin-and-biden-misunderstand-history-in-ukraine-war

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:41:07 PM UTC, borie wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 2:04:50 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries as

a home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

The NYtimes framed the incident as a slip or a veiled threat. The Atlantic called it an unforced error.

My take: Language and intention have been circulating among Biden and his close advisors for a while. IF the US hasn't made the final decision, it is a threat. The question is "Why Now?" IF it does reach a decision, the question is whether such

disclosure is timely?

Biden read from the prepared speech goes to show that it is not a slip up or an unforced error. It is intended to show the power dynamics of America supremacy to exert influence and control to the audiences. It is American power to admonish a leader of

another big power and not an appeal of regime change. It is not easy for big power to appeal for regime change of another big power. If the other power is a small and weak power, then such admonishment remark could mean an appeal for regime change, a war
is inserted..

All US outlets said Biden's remark was unscripted. No reason not to believe them on this issue.
Anyway, scripted or unscripted made no different at present. The information is already out.

In addition, It is clear that Biden really wants Putin out according to Niall Fugerson.
"The only end game now is the end of Putin regime."

The speculative questions now are "How?" and "At what cost?" to Ukraine, Russia, Europe,
America and China.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:12:25 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:41:07 PM UTC, borie wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 2:04:50 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries

as a home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

The NYtimes framed the incident as a slip or a veiled threat. The Atlantic called it an unforced error.

My take: Language and intention have been circulating among Biden and his close advisors for a while. IF the US hasn't made the final decision, it is a threat. The question is "Why Now?" IF it does reach a decision, the question is whether such

disclosure is timely?

Biden read from the prepared speech goes to show that it is not a slip up or an unforced error. It is intended to show the power dynamics of America supremacy to exert influence and control to the audiences. It is American power to admonish a leader

of another big power and not an appeal of regime change. It is not easy for big power to appeal for regime change of another big power. If the other power is a small and weak power, then such admonishment remark could mean an appeal for regime change, a
war is inserted..

All US outlets said Biden's remark was unscripted. No reason not to believe them on this issue.
Anyway, scripted or unscripted made no different at present. The information is already out.

In addition, It is clear that Biden really wants Putin out according to Niall Fugerson.
"The only end game now is the end of Putin regime."

"The planning for regime change in Russia has been under way for at least a decade. In an e-mail congratulating a State Department aide on her promotion to the White House national security staff, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton wrote, “… we
need you at the White House to help plan and execute our Russian strategy post-Putin.”

Biden’s speech last weekend at the Warsaw Castle gave a clue as to what he and the US foreign-policy establishment have in mind “post-Putin.” In Biden’s telling, “Over the last 30 years, the forces of autocracy have revived all across the globe.
” And Russia, which “has strangled democracy” at home, now seeks to do so elsewhere.

Biden’s speech attempted to recast the war in Ukraine as part of a larger battle “between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.”

The idea of a world divided between democracy and autocracy is one this White House seems unusually wedded to, but is one that had been, for many years, associated with neoconservative ideologues like Robert Kagan and the late US senator John McCain."

This tendency, which manifests itself in all the self-indulgent talk about “democracies and autocracies,” ignores the inescapable fact that, “Forms of government are forged mainly in the fire of practice, not in the vacuum of theory. They respond
to national character and to national realities.”

Kennan, however, had a different view. Americans, he observed, have an “inveterate tendency to judge others by the extent to which they contrive to be like ourselves.”

This tendency, which manifests itself in all the self-indulgent talk about “democracies and autocracies,” ignores the inescapable fact that, “Forms of government are forged mainly in the fire of practice, not in the vacuum of theory. They respond
to national character and to national realities.”

https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/george-kennan-and-the-russian-future/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:04:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries as a

home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

The NYtimes framed the incident as a slip or a veiled threat. The Atlantic called it an unforced error.

My take: Language and intention have been circulating among Biden and his close advisors for a while. IF the US hasn't made the final decision, it is a threat. The question is "Why Now?" IF it does reach a decision, the question is whether such

disclosure is timely?

Sohrab Ahmari of theamericanconservative.com frames the remark and the underlying Bush-Biden doctrine on a bigger canvas.
Conclusion: "The Bush-Biden Doctrine is another American debacle in the making."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-bush-biden-doctrine/

"Much has been made of Joe Biden’s instantly reversed call for regime change in Moscow. Speaking in Warsaw, the president said of Vladimir Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” The words sent his staffers scrambling to cleanup
on Aisle Three and prompted European leaders to firmly distance themselves from Washington.
...
Far worse and more irreparably damaging was the statement Biden tweeted on Saturday that read: “We are engaged anew in a great battle for freedom. A battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression. This battle will not be won in
days or months, either. We need to steel ourselves for the long fight ahead.”

This was no typical big-mouth Biden whoopsie-daisy. This was a deliberate, apparently considered expression of what might be called the Bush-Biden Doctrine: one that harks back to the worst of the George W. Bush years, when America was in the business of
dividing the whole planet into two camps—light and dark, good and evil, free and unfree, Autobots and Decepticons. As foolish as such a Manichaean foreign policy was after 9/11, it is even more so today, because much as Biden is a feebler man than Bush
at the height of his powers, so is the America of 2022 feebler than the country that set out to remake Iraq and Afghanistan.
...
These public-diplomacy concerns aside, Biden’s revival of the Bush Doctrine is dangerously out of tune with the deeper processes transforming world order, especially the rise of generally non-ideological middle powers jockeying for influence within
larger regional security arrangements. As TAC contributor Arta Moeini and his coauthors note in a brilliant new white paper for the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, middle powers present enormous opportunities for a great power like the United States—
opportunities we’re likely to miss if we insist on ideologizing strategy on a grand scale and reducing foreign policy to a simplistic confrontation between good and evil.
...
The point is this: The middle powers present challenges and opportunities that the Bush-Biden Doctrine simply can’t grasp.
...
Forcing Ankara, or New Delhi, to declare itself for or against “liberty” won’t save a single Ukrainian life. But it will alienate America even further from core regional states that could be potential partners to Washington in preserving order. The
Bush-Biden Doctrine is another American debacle in the making."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:04:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries as

a home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

Putin should of course be ousted. But Biden was speaking for himself, not announcing American foreign policy.

Putin is a bad man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:29:44 AM UTC, bmoore wrote:

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:04:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for centuries

as a home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

Putin should of course be ousted. But Biden was speaking for himself, not announcing American foreign policy.

Putin is a bad man.

1. Biden spoke as the US president in an official setting. Whatever he said would naturally carry foreign policy implication.
2. A specific utterance is not as important as long running policy. In this case, the Bush-Biden doctrine under
which the " planning for regime change in Russia has been under way for at least a decade."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:10:51 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:29:44 AM UTC, bmoore wrote:

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:04:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for

centuries as a home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

Putin should of course be ousted. But Biden was speaking for himself, not announcing American foreign policy.

Putin is a bad man.

1. Biden spoke as the US president in an official setting. Whatever he said would naturally carry foreign policy implication.

You are not an elected official. You don't understand the difference between personal statements and foreign policy.

2. A specific utterance is not as important as long running policy. In this case, the Bush-Biden doctrine under
which the " planning for regime change in Russia has been under way for at least a decade."

Hmm, no evidence presented. But Putin is a bad man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 9:10:25 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:10:51 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:29:44 AM UTC, bmoore wrote:

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:04:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/world/europe/biden-ukraine-poland-speech.html

"WARSAW — They were among the final few words of a carefully crafted speech. But they strayed far from the delicate balance that President Biden had tried to strike during three days of wartime diplomacy in Europe.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Mr. Biden said Saturday, his cadence slowing for emphasis.

On its face, he appeared to be calling for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be ousted for his brutal invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Biden’s aides quickly insisted that the remark — delivered in front of a castle that served for

centuries as a home for Polish monarchs — was not intended as an appeal for regime change."

Putin should of course be ousted. But Biden was speaking for himself, not announcing American foreign policy.

Putin is a bad man.

1. Biden spoke as the US president in an official setting. Whatever he said would naturally carry foreign policy implication.

You are not an elected official. You don't understand the difference between personal statements and foreign policy.

Please flesh up your disagreement. As is, you are not saying anything contradicting my statement 1. above.
Doesn't need to be an elected official to know that "personal statement" and "foreign policy" are not necessarily the same.

2. A specific utterance is not as important as long running policy. In this case, the Bush-Biden doctrine under
which the " planning for regime change in Russia has been under way for at least a decade."

Hmm, no evidence presented.

"James W Carden was for six years the principal foreign affairs writer for The Nation magazine and has had his reporting and essays featured in a wide variety of publications. Previous to that he served as an adviser to the US State Department. He is a
member of the Board of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy and senior consultant to the American Committee for US-Russia Accord."

James W Carden wrote "The planning for regime change in Russia has been under way for at least a decade."
If you want readers to believe you and not James W Carden, please furnish more information.

But Putin is a bad man.

Please start a new thread.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)