Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday warned that a Ukrainian attempt at retaking Crimea would be a “red line” for Russian President Vladimir Putin and risks a major response.
POLITICO reported that Blinken made the comments during a Zoom call Wednesday with a group of experts in a discussion about the war, citing four unnamed people familiar with the call.
Blinken’s comments mark a potential shift in the Biden administration’s thinking about Crimea. While the Pentagon doesn’t think Ukraine has a chance of retaking Crimea, The New York Times reported last month that the administration still wanted to help Ukraine attack the peninsula and wasn’t concerned about escalating the war.
Putin has shown a willingness to significantly escalate the war over attacks on Crimea. Russia did not start large-scale missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure until after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea to the Russian mainland.
According to POLITICO’s sources, Blinken made the comments when asked if the administration was willing to help Ukraine achieve its goal of taking Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014. They said Blinken conveyed that the US isn’t actively encouraging Ukraine to retake the peninsula but said it’s Kyiv’s decision whether or not to do so.
Ukrainian officials still maintain that they will drive Russia out of the peninsula, but the Pentagon recently told members of Congress that it’s unlikely. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has publicly said it’s doubtful Ukraine will be able to drive Russia out of all the territory it controls by the end of this year.
“I still maintain that for this year it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from all — every inch of Ukraine and occupied — or Russian-occupied Ukraine,” Milley said on January 20.
While Ukrainian officials say they will “liberate” Crimea, most people living on the peninsula are happy they are part of the Russian Federation. Russia annexed Crimea following the 2014 US-backed coup in Kyiv that ousted former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and sparked the civil war in the Donbas.
A referendum at the time saw 97% of voters in favor of joining the Russian Federation. While the US and Ukraine dispute the results, polling since then has shown that the people of Crimea are happy they joined Russia.
Did Blinken fall on his head? That almost sounds sensible.
Wait till tommorow. Once he circles with his soulmates, he will be himmself again,
It will certainly not stop his neocon cohorts from doubling down and pushing for more escalation. Their ultimate goal is to force the USA into a catastrophic war with Russia.
I don’t think all neocons are evangelicals.
First off, all neocons are Zionists. Not all evangelicals are Zionists, just the 80% of them who voted for Trump in 2020. Zionism is a perverse ideology that has built into it the Samson Option.
Chosenites all, they agree with the Israeli poet, Itamar Yaoz-Kest, who wrote, “And yet, there is a right reserved only to us Jews (if indeed any human on Earth has this right): to be destroyed and to take the weary and sated world with us into non-existence, along with its wondrous libraries and heart-stirring tunes – just so, after we descend to the grave, while the ground emits radioactive rays to all four winds…”
👏👏👏
And as far as “mice” go, their “hierarchy” around my place tells them, “ Head for the hills, these damn people have eight cats!”
It is the ultimate goal of Satan. They are only blind tools in the hands of the absolute evil.
Don’t get excited. He’s still a meatheaded moron. He would be hilarious if he had no power.
The wind changed direction.
He is trying to confuse Putin. It fits perfectly with US strategy. They are poking Russia permanently with a progressive escalation but not too fast.
Sy Hersh: “People around Biden are not deep thinkers.”
https://youtu.be/FQMdQLjI-Tk
If he were drowning I’d throw him a cement block.
No, this is a desperate attempt to maintain an illusion of impartiality. Pentagon filth is getting their ass kicked in Donbass and free people blame imperial scum like him for death and destruction. He, or rather his owners, hope to redirect blame on puppet regime in Kiev.
The East Ukrainians fought for joining Russia. Crimeans will do exactly the same if ever they were forced to separate from Russia. People will always fight to be free, same as Palestinians, Miramar, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria etc.
East Ukrainians? That sounds like a lot of people. Replace east Ukrainians with separatists of Donbas which aren’t even the majority, perhaps now after they pushed many Ukrainians out.
“People will always fight to be free, same as Palestinians, Miramar, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria etc.”
Great statement but you conveniently left out the people of Ukraine fighting for the freedom.
The Russians are never going to allow the naval base in Sevastopol to fall into the hands of NATO. That’s just not going to happen. And it’s why Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Illegal or not, I would have done the same thing. Note to Victoria Nuland, f#ck NATO.
“Russians are never going to allow the naval [American] base in Sevastopol” – one may say the same about Odessa.
I was thinking the same thing.
They bombed pretty much everything American in Odessa right from the start. Killed several Pentagon grunts if I recall correctly.
And f*ck her cookies too 😉
Russia annexed Crimea before US annexed Texas and California from Mexico.
Crimea is an Autonomous Republic. It seceded from Ukraine in 2014 and joined Russian Federation. Kremlin had little to do with the will of the population. They only provided security to make sure Anglo-American mercs didn’t start shooting people like they did in Kiev and Donetsk.
Crimea is the only part of Ukraine that is majority Russian. It has a separate history from the rest of Ukraine. There was virtually no opposition to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Ukraine should concentrate on liberating territory where the people want to be part of Ukraine and oppose the Russian invasion.
None of the areas occupied by Russia want to be part of the Ukrainian ethno state. That’s the point.
It is not clear that the people of the Donbas want to secede or even if the former secessionists support the Russian invasion. In any event, the status of the Donbas is an internal Ukrainian matter. Russia has no legal standing to invade Ukrainian territory to aid a secessionist movement. If Russia supports secession, Putin should have stuck to diplomacy.
We also have to start to differentiate what current government wants (Ukraine back in old borders) from what is actually best for the people living there – they have been long-term asking for autonomy, disallowed from proper vote participation, disregarded in how they wanted their own regions to be governed, robbed of certain basic human rights, not to mention civilians being killed by government army or supported groups. Just insisting they simply go back under Ukrainian central government probably will not end well for them – if they were hated before, just think what situation they would be put in now, after war. And we know Ukrainian government never intended to keep any of Minsk promises, which were partially focused on improving their situation and giving them better position in their own region. I am not saying those regions shall go under Russia, but neither should they just be simply reunited with central Ukrainian government unless we want to see real massacres… The end point here is not so simple as to give Ukraine it’s old borders back, that brings us not only back to where we were at start of 2022, but in even worse situation where even more radicalised groups will now be even more brutal in their treatment.
Keo, There have been a lot of misconceptions about what is happening in Donbas. Everyone agrees that there were about 14,000 casualties in the Ukrainian civil war between 2014 and 2021, almost all in Donbas. Of that figure about 6,500 were separatist fighters, about 4,500 were anti-separatist fighers (military, paramilitary and volunteers) and about 3,000 were civilians. Here is a year by year list of casualties from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/
Year Number
2014 2,084
2015 954
2016 112
2017 117
2018 55
2019 27
2020 26
2021 25
As you can see, since Zelensky was elected in 2019 there have been about 26 civilian casualties a year. In other words, the massgenocide the Russian propaganda claims occurred never happened. There were real problems regarding the treatment of Russian ethnics But those were internal Ukrainian matters. Not justification for an invasion.
No no, it was not a justification for invasion, that is different issue (the major direct conflict subsided after Minsk agreements after all, although per OSCE was growing significantly the week from Feb 16th 2022 when they went on massive shelling of civilians – also how many lives lost is enough to intervene? Casualties are not the only signs of oppressions), all I meant to say was there is still a problematic situation in which they pushed people there (just read what Minsk agreements were asking for for small overview of biggest issues, if they did not exist they would hardly be mentioned, with how brief they are it is just cherry on top) – and if you just give them back to the same government, without further intervention, it will now be even worse than before the war. Those people suffered enough, they were not paid pensions or social payments unlike rest of country, even when not necessarily killed their homes were bombarded, were not supported by government whatsoever in their development or culture, were not allowed to partake in national votes either… Lots of breaking of their basic rights, so when they ask for autonomy, before walking away from the war claiming it is over, their situation needs to be addressed, any retaliation towards them needs to be stopped, they need their rights back and some level of autonomy or independence to ensure they finally can live in peace. It is not internal matter at all at the level it was happening, whether you deem there were enough direct civilian casualties or not.
Statista is akin to fact checking organizations. Not reliable. Body counts in graveyards are reliable.
Putin tried diplomacy for 8 years. Washington DC wanted this war.
False, that’s what the Kremlin propaganda machine is spreading with the help of repeaters like you. That’s the point.
So… what was the % of the people that voted for the pro Russia candidate in the elections for Ukraine’s presidency again? 2:1 in the Donbas, right? Those numbers aren’t propaganda. Just facts.
The idea that the Russian speaking population want to be second class citizens under the boot of ethnic Ukrainian nationalists is. ridiculous.
The only thing I am sure of in this world is you are ignorant and uniformed about politics and history and mistakenly think that the US is great and good and on the sides of the angels.I would posit that has never been the case starting with the extermination of the Native Americans,the buffalo and continuing one into the slave years and the wars of conquest.How many people has the military killed or rendered homeless in search of raw materials in search of rapacious Capitalism and its profits that are not rendered to the people. The damage done is mindboggling
Yes, the capitalism is such.
Ukraine and NATO aren’t able to retake Crimea. That window closed a long time ago.
Well, NATO is not fighting in Ukraine, they are providing equipment and weapons to Ukraine. NATO would take Crimea in no time if they were in fact fighting CONVENTIONALLY the S!ht Russain army of criminals and looters.
One country in NATO has an 800+ billion-dollar defense budget. Russia has a minute fraction of that one country. But 6000 nukes are an equalizer.
I believe that there are two other factors to consider in evaluating Russian and American military capabilities, despite the disparity in spending. One, the Russian military spending is purpose driven while the United States military spending is profit driven. The other is that the Russian military is focused primarily on defending their homeland, while the United States military is focused primarily on projecting power around the globe. Neither would fare well fighting a conventional military conflict on the other’s territory. Which I look at as a feature, not a bug.
I don’t disagree. But I was only talking about the US. NATO countries combined dwarf Russia’s defense budget so there is no way they can compete with that weaponry no matter how much wiser they spend their money on defense.
It looks to me like Russia is doing a pretty good job of competing against NATO weaponry. The cupboards are starting to get bare in Europe. The United States stocks might be greater than Russia’s, but the United States has to get them over there, and they’re apparently saving some back for the impending conflict with China. I have to laugh about that one.
For awhile yes, but if this war will last a couple of years longer, the more powerful weaponry will be used eventually.
They are going to compete neither with that weaponry nor with the number of soldiers. They have good nukes and when it is necessary, they will use them.
If you think Russian military spending isn’t profit-driven, that thing you’re doing that you think is thinking isn’t.
The Russian military does seem to be having trouble, as you say, fighting a conventional military conflict on someone else’s territory, though.
How is it profit driven? Russia’s MIC is State owned.
Yes, it’s state-owned, and the bureaucrats who run it just happen to have become billionaires since being put in charge of it. They found moving trucks full of cash parked in the alleys behind their dachas or something, right?
I don’t know, Thomas. Did they?
It is just a fantasy. Most Americans can’t imagine that people may have a different motivation.
I don’t discount what Thomas said. It’s certainly plausible that there is a lot of corruption going on in the Russian MIC. But I would be curious as to what extent it affects their capabilities. I tried to do some quick searching about it on the web, but it’s hard to know what is true and what is propaganda.
Russia is very much corrupted country but not at the top level. Military industry is governed by Putin, Mishustin, Manturov, Borisov and some other less significant officials. There are no signs that any of the first four is corrupted. They are working very much efficient. Russian military industry made a huge progress in the last 12 months.
It will be ironic if the U.S. war against Russia will invigorate Russian patriotism and industry. Russians know how to mobilize when their country is threatened. Not to mention that it will bring Russia closer to China.
That is exactly what happened already.
“Russians know how to mobilize when their country is threatened.”
Yes, but the question is “have they been, and if they haven’t can they be, fooled into believing their country is threatened?”
You might think that Russia hasn’t been threatened, but what matters is not what you think, but what they think. My best guess is that, in regard to Russia’s relationship with Ukraine and NATO, if you were standing in Vladimir Putin’s shoes, you would be doing the same thing that he is doing.
“what matters is not what you think, but what they think”
That’s what I just said.
The question is whether or not the Russian public falling for the claim that their country is threatened.
Just like the question on the other side is whether or not the public is falling for the claim that their countries are threatened.
Your comment seemed to imply that you don’t think that Russia is threatened. That’s what I was speaking to.
It’s not that I don’t think Russia is threatened. It’s that Russia isn’t threatened. Neither is the US, or China. The only threat any of the three face is nuclear. None of the three could be plausibly invaded and occupied.
When it comes to wars of territorial conquest, the question all imperialist regimes face is “how do we fool the public into believing this is necessary?”
Sure, Thomas. The neocons in charge of the US government, which includes the president, the secretary of state, the national security adviser, and the majority of Congress, are not threatening Russia when they talk about destroying Russia’s economy, ousting their government, and breaking Russia up into pieces. They only have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. Just like they have the best interests of the American people in mind at all times.
FYI, Thomas, the United States government is a threat to the entire world. The only thing it cares about is its own rotten existence. It needs to be stopped. And I hope Russia and China are able to stop it.
“I hope Russia and China are able to stop it” – unfortunately, American people themselves can’t take under control the aggressive militarism of American oligarchy. So, it is now the responsibility of Russia and China. I have no doubt, they can do it. The only question is: what a price the humankind is going to pay for the neutralization of this evil.
Ideally the American people would rise up and get their government under control. That’s what should happen. But I have no confidence in that scenario happening. i see most Americans as focused on virtue signaling and getting as much “free” stuff as they can.
People need a center of coordination and a certain idea around which they could unite for the uprising. For example, Iranian revolution was led by provincial mullahs. They understood each other very well because they were united by the religion.
American oligarchs understand the danger of the religion for their power. That’s why they are working very hard for the destruction of Christianity. The other danger for them is the socialist idea (which by the way is also based upon Christian and Islam values). We have to accept that the rulers of US are quite successful.
“Then the devil left him, and went off to find someone more willing to be tempted to evil. And that, children, is the story of Kirill.”
The US, Russian, and Chinese regimes are threats to the entire world. The only thing they care about are their own rotten existences. They need to be stopped. But the only way any of them can stop any of the others is with nuclear holocaust, so they’ll have to be stopped by some other force, such as internal revolution, which has its own dangers.
And here is a handy antidote:
https://www.masterofmalt.com/rum/p-2813/st-lucia-distillers/chairmans-reserve-spiced-rum.jpg?ss=2.0
One drop three times a day works wonders for me.
Cheers, Thomas.
I don’t buy the idea that Russia and China are threats to the rest of the world. That’s western propaganda meant to promote support for the MIC and the idea of American exceptionalism.
Exceptionalism = Nazim
Yes, NATO is a threat. Ask the Serbians. And the Afghanis and Libyans too.
That seems to be exactly what has happened. The US strategy has been a total failure.
Just from today on Bloomberg on Russian patriotism:
Darya, a 36-year-old bookkeeper, said she was dead set against her husband’s plan to volunteer to fight when he first announced it shortly after the invasion last year, threatening to leave him if he did. Her husband, a veteran with combat experience, signed up anyway. By the time he came back on furlough in the summer, she’d changed her mind.
“Now I think my husband is a hero,” said Darya, asking that her last name and the provincial city she lives in not be used for fear of speaking openly to a US media outlet. “Men shouldn’t hide behind mother’s skirts when their country needs them,” she added. “When he comes back in March, we’re planning to pay off the mortgage” with his earnings, she said.
Interesting. Profit isn’t corruption. Only statists of the socialist ilk believe that.
It is true that the Russian military was designed for defense purposes prior 2022. That seems to be changing.
Dont forget the 40% the Russian budget gets stripped of due to corruption.
Do you have any evidence to support that?
Do you have any evidence to support the contrary?
You made the claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that 40% of the Russian budget gets stripped due to corruption?
Pfff
Just move to Russia. You’ll be happy there.
I was just pointing out why Russia can’t compete conventionally with NATO. You try so hard to read sh*t into my comments when there isn’t anything there. Why on earth would I want to move to Russia?
Whatever dude, you support Russia taking land from Ukraine.
And dont give me that NATO excuse cause it isn’t.
No respect for you.
Again, it goes against everything you’ve ever said here over the last year.
Taking land from another country? Absolutely no justification for that.
That doesn’t have anything to do with why Russia can’t compete in a conventional war with the US/NATO and that is what I commented on. So, thanks for proving my point. Again.
And I could care less what you think of me. I’ve been consistent. I haven’t said a damn thing to contradict myself. I even had the same opinion of Putin. And that goes way back before 2014 if you know what I mean. Can you say the same?
NATO could easily defeat the Russian army in a conventional war in Crimea. But US/NATO would then be an occupying power unsuccessfully fighting an indigenous Crimean resistance movement. It’s that hearts and minds thing. It works both ways. Most evidence indicates that Crimeans would rather be part of Russia than Ukraine.
I would agree with that. Taking land is one thing but holding it is another.
nato could do no such thing without all European capitals being burnt to the ground in one single salvo.
Oh look…. A brainwashed moron….^ A number of Americans, English, etc. have been killed in “Ukraine”. I doubt NATO has the experienced troops or sufficient ammunition and equipment to do jack shit, any longer.
The Russian army is slowly grinding the Ukrainian army into dust, and there is nothing that NATO can do to stop them. Nothing except launching a nuclear strike on Russia. In that case, we will all be dead. Sorry to have to break it to you, NATO fanboy.
Emphasis on “slowly.”
Sort of like how the Israeli regime is slowly genociding the Palestinian Arab population such that the latter has only grown by a few multiples.
I believe that it’s in the Russian’s interest to go slowly. Look at what’s happening to the western economies. They were unraveling before this war started, but it’s become much worse since the start of the war.
Haha Russia wants to go slowly. Lol. You are demented.
Why should the Russians be in any hurry? The more they draw it out the more the west unravels. NATO fanboy.
Sure, if by “much worse” you mean “somewhat better.”
Otherwise, not so much.
No, I mean much worse. As in higher energy prices as a result of the sanctions on Russia causing businesses to close down or relocate, and all the hardships that come from that. But go ahead and keep denying reality. I don’t care.
The German economy took a short, minor hit last year and has since gone back into growth.
It wasn’t obvious that it would go that way — the warmest winter on record in Europe helped a good deal — but it did go that way.
Otherwise, we might have found how bad things have to get to produce a destabilizing level of domestic discontent over the war.
That was the second blown Russian chance to come out of this thing with substantial gains (the first chance was to achieve a quick military victory by last April or so).
It’s possible some unforeseen third chance might come along, but doesn’t seem very likely.
They were able to take advantage of the stored gas they purchased from Russia before the sanctions took effect. That gas will be gone at the end of this winter. They lucked out on the mild winter. But I still read about businesses whose gas bills were several times what they were the previous year. Something has to give. This coming year will be hurt city for them. The seeds have already been planted.
I guess you haven’t noted the tremendous inflation, Thomas.
Or perhaps you’re well enough off that it doesn’t affect you. I dare to say that isn’t true for the majority of us, especially us retirees.
If I calculated my income out to hourly rates, I doubt it would amount to “minimum wage.”
Yes, I noted the tremendous inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s. I’ve also noted the much milder inflation of the last couple of years, which began before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and which seems to include the ongoing war as an exceedingly minor factor.
Thomas, THERE YOU GO AGAIN.
It’s called “incremental genocide” and if you wish to stay abreast of the situation, I suggest you start getting Mondoweiss in your inbox.
Gazans are on a starvation diet. West Bank residents are murdered daily by both squatters and the IDF (including children). Thousands of Palestinians languish in Israeli jails being held without charges.
If the Palestinian population is “growing”, it’s being systematically cut back by those “mowing the lawn” operations.
Genocide involves actually reducing a population.
Not everything bad is “genocide.”
If someone steals your car, the charge is auto theft, not loitering or rape.
You must not know or care about the history of the US military over the years since Viet Nam. Why don’t you read a book to gain some truth and knowledge,
Im US Military retiree.
But I will read another book for you.
HUGE NEWS
It verifies that Russia is winning, Blinken knows it, and he is taking one of our more aggressive goals off the table.
A few more seconds away from nuclear annihilation.
This is tremendously good news. We are still miles away from peace, but it is close to being possible.
“verifies that Russia is winning, Blinken knows it, and he is taking one of our more aggressive goals off the table.”
hm…been hinted at a few times…what it means?…guessing the Biden admin recognizes it, but considers it in its interest to drag out the war for domestic political gain: postponing a post-‘no win’ settlement backlash til after the 24 elections…plus more billions for MIC meantime…
“On December 7…Blinken modified the US demand for territorial integrity, defining it, not as all of Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbas, but Ukraine as it stood on the eve of the invasion. Blinken told the [WSJ] that the American goals in Ukraine…”[included taking] back territory…seized from it since February 24th….”
“Five Statements That Could Change the War” Ted Snider December 23, 2022
“Wall Street Journal reports…’Two European diplomats briefed on [November] discussions said…Sullivan recommended…Zelensky’s team start thinking about its realistic demands and priorities for negotiations, including a reconsideration of its stated aim for Ukraine to regain Crimea”
“Signs of Diplomacy in Ukraine? Finding a Faint Pulse” Ted Snider November 18, 2022
It is not hard to believe that a warmonger like Joe Biden would keep backing a losing hand in order to maintain his electibility. First if he runs he loses. I and other liberal and leftists voted for him only because he was not Trump. 70% do not want him to run again. We need a new canidate not tied old corrupt system. If this does not happen and DeSantis runs and wins there will be terror and chaos in America. Everything we hold dear is threatened by the combination of Congress being controlled by the Republican and the right wing SCOTUS. Joe Biden or some one similar is not the answer to the issues and problems we face.
“I and other liberal and leftists voted for him only because he was not Trump.” 70% do not want him to run again.”
But…w/no perceived choice, they’ll vote for ‘im. At least hope those who think that way will only vote D (vs 3rd party) in toss-up states…you know – so liberals can’t as simply point to a Biden vote as evidence ‘voters are centrist.’
“if he runs he loses.”
Short of a health crisis, he is most definitely running – what the d’s get for nominating an amazingly unpopular joke of a vp in effort to get the female and black votes.
Getting black votes was especially a prob’ since African Americans shifted support to Sanders over Biden in Feb 2020 – despite Democrats’ and mainstream media’s slimy 2015-2020 campaigns to tar him racist.
“Poll: Bernie Sanders Takes National Lead Among Black Voters”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/24/poll-bernie-sanders-takes-national-lead-among-black-voters/
Let us all.hope for a health crisis and Trump and his minions.in jail.
It could get even worse though, Wendell. We could end up with deSatanis.
I’ve heard our governor’s name being tossed around as a possible democratic candidate (Gretchen Whitmer). All I can say is that Michigan is awash with cash without taxes being raised. She’s whip-smart and attractive to boot.
Please. Black voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden during the primaries, and in the general. One outlier poll hardly proves othewise.
“Black voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden during the primaries, and in the general.”
1/ Please stick to the primaries, since that was the focus of my claim.
Essentially, I claim Democrats nominated a woman of color because – despite the DP and mainstream media’s sleaziest efforts – in 2019-2020 Blacks showed they were prepared to support Sanders.
2/ The poll I cited showing Sanders leading Biden was not “one outlier,” but the culmination of a Black shift to Sanders throughout Fall 2019 and January 2020 – a shift appearing in multiple polls showing Sanders steadily closing in on and then passing Biden in Feb 20.
Thus, we go from this:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/02/black-voters-sanders-biden-2020-1479234
…to this…
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-sanders-gains-ground-biden-black-voters-n1140166
…to this:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/484611-new-national-poll-shows-sanders-surpassing-biden-with-african/
Note, btw, this last poll with Sanders ahead was not the Morning Consult.
3/ True, after the DP told all other Dem candidates to drop out, and Clyburn messaged the southern Black political machine that ‘only Biden could beat Trump,’ Blacks – especially older Blacks in the South – swung back behind Biden.
4/ But that does not challenge my claim: that the Sanders threat – showing Black’s uncertain loyalties, and willingness to support him, even in the South – was one big driver of the D’s choice of a woman of color to ‘secure’ that base further.
2020 primaries Black vote Biden versus Sanders was not even close. Again, a few outlier polls during a brief blip in the campaign don’t change that.
See here, to choose just one example, for a summary, and for the stats, in the primaries.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/joe-biden-owes-it-all-to-african-american-voters.html
Yes, Clyburn’s endorsements and the others dropping out helped Biden. So what? “Older Blacks in the South” get to vote too! And they get to respect someone like Clyburn if they choose. Not sure what you think you are proving….politics is politics. It was widely reported that Sanders did not even seek Clyburn’s endorsement. And did Sanders really think that all the candidates would stay in the race, even after it was clear that they had no chance? Candidates dropping out is part and parcel of every presidential primary campaign. Not sure what you’re going on about “a woman of color” either. Do you mean VP Harris? Again, so what? Black folks like Biden (they actually like Sanders too, but perhaps not quite as much, nor were they sure the white folks would vote for him in November, and they wanted the safe play against Trump…by the way, not only Black folks felt this way. Biden was far from my first choice, but, all things being equal, Biden was up for the task of beating Trump and I’m not sure any other Dem was, including my choices, and Sanders.) And, one supposes, that Dem woman and Black voters, who are the back bone of the party, do indeed like that a woman of color is the VP. Again, is that supposed to be bad?
I guess I just don’t see your point. Sanders had no strategy to win. Black voters for MOST of the campaign season favored Biden (polls showed Biden the clear choice of Black voters from the beginning of the campaign in 2019 through January 2020), and then they voted for him (starting in March, and, as far as I can tell, in every single primary). One short blip in February, at Biden’s low ebb (after losing the white States of Iowa and NH), put him and Sanders even in the Black vote polls. OK, great. But so what?
1/ Nothing wrong w/the DP playing hardball or responding to its older Black f. southern base – even if Harris as VP was throwing it bones.
2/ You keep measuring the Sanders-w/-Blacks question by the final primaries and electoral result. But that’s an error of analysis here, because I’m asserting that, during a particular period in the primaries – the 6 mo leading up to Feb 20 – that later outcome was unclear. (You yrself admitted S was a contender then.)
And it was right after that period the DP saw a Black VP as imperative – in large part to repay Clyburn and the Southern Black DP machine for their work, and Southern voters for their votes.
Upshot: given the horse race coverage of primaries, your “blip” – when, over 6 mo., S pulled even and then edged ahead w/Blacks – was actually a huge deal at the time:
‘Yea, but Sanders isn’t electable ’cause he can’t get Blacks votes’ had been a justification for voting Clinton in 2016; not so in 2020: ABC 2/21/20: “Sanders’ gains with black voters are a big deal heading into the race’s next phase”
3/ With the above in mind, my point once more: The DP screwed itself by nominating Harris.
The DP screwed itself because – vs Abrams (the obvious choice for demographic and politics reasons) – the only Black acceptable to the right liberal DP was an amazingly unlikeable and electorally unpopular half-Black person of color w/’tough on crime’ creds. The self-screw was because, with a doddering Biden prone to memory lapses and alarming fits of anger, the DP nonetheless chose a completely unfit to run for President in 24 VP.
The mainstream press is silent on this point, but, under any normal set of circumstances, the obvious question would be, ‘Well if Biden’s too old, why isn’t his VP on the short-list after 4 years in the WH?’
Biden led Sanders, and everyone else, in the Black vote, for the entire six month period leading up to the brief, Feb 2020 blip (when they were statistically tied), that you keep hyping. So, you are just wrong about that.
July 2019:
https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/09/biden-still-leads-among-black-voters-but-his-support-is-softening/
Sept 2019:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/02/black-voters-sanders-biden-2020-1479234
Dec 2019:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/13/poll-biden-continues-to-dominate-among-black-voters-084285
January 2020:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/black-voters-democratic-primary-poll/index.html
AND Biden went on to dominate the Black vote in the actual primaries, once States with Black people were voting, which was directly after that brief, Feb 2020 blip.
Weird to me how some posters on this website like to continue to fight a battle, one in which they are obviously wrong not just as a mater of opinion, but as a factual matter, endlessly. Long after the thread has dissappeared. And then they wait days to respond, presumably, so they can get the last word.
And I still don’t get your point about Harris. She was, besides a WOC, a US Senator from the largest State, which is also a blue state. I like Abrams, but she was a defeated gubernatorial candidate. And, why in the world was Abrams the only person who could fill the VP role? There is no reason. Apparently, Harris is too much of a “right liberal” for you. OK, fine. But she was a perfectly acceptable VP choice for the party. Black voters certainly were not put off my her, as the Biden-Harris ticket did just fine with Black voters in the general election. And if the “right liberal base” liked her too, again, why is that a bad thing? Usually, the “base” liking someone is a postitive thing.
Weird to me how some posters on this website like to continue to fight a battle, one in which they are obviously wrong not just as a mater of opinion, but as a factual matter, endlessly. Long after the thread has dissappeared.
Val Demings would probably have been the better VP pick from among women of color. With her on the ticket, Biden still might not have won Florida, but it would likely have looked more competitive.
And that would have mattered, how? EC votes by States are winner take all. Being “competitive” but still losing in Florida (or any other State), and five dollars, gets you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Biden won all of the competitive States in the general election (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) with the exception of one. And, in that one, NC, Biden might have won if the Senatorial candidate on the D side had kept his pants on. Biden ran a completely sound campaign, and, I might add, his VP choice did not seem to hurt him at all.
Yes Biden ran a sound campaign.
But you don’t seem to understand how being “competitive” in a state helps even if you don’t win it.
If you can make a state “competitive” without spending your money — for example, by picking a particular running mate — you force your opponent to spend more time in, and more money on, that state. Which means he can’t be spending that time and money elsewhere.
Heck, even having to spend money to be “competitive” can help. The Democrats weren’t going to win the US Senate race in Texas in 2018. But they did make Ted Cruz spend $45 million to STOP them from winning it. And that was $45 million his committee couldn’t transfer to, and donors sent to Texas instead of to, competitive races in other states.
Not if you think there is no chance for your opponent to win there, regardless. You said yourself that a different running mate, at best, might have made Florida “look more competitive.” Well, if you know that, I’m pretty sure the GOP strategists know it too.
Biden focused on winning the states that it was possible to win. Florida was not one of them. So he put minimal effort into it, and certainly was not going to pick a “no name” Congresswomen over a well-known Senator for his VP choice just to make it “look more competitive” in that one state.
It was established beyond a shadow of a doubt in the pre-primary polling: Nobody liked Kamala Harris, and nobody was going to vote for Biden just because she was on the ticket.
If driving black/female voter turnout was the purpose of having a woman of color, Demings actually had some qualifications other than being good at climbing the party ladder in a state that Biden was going to win anyway.
Weird how this thread is mutating into “Let’s all second guess Biden’s VP pick!” For me, Biden did everything right. I don’t care what the polls show about Harris. She was a prominent, big State US Senator. She ran for president. She was seen as a centrist, much like Biden himself. She was a woman of color. She is the second Black woman ever to serve in the US Senate. And, as the time she was chosen to be VP, she was the ONLY Black woman serving in the US Senate. Even if not beloved, she was seen as qualified. Which I don’t think an obscure Congresswoman would be. (Don’t forget Biden’s health was always a question, and the imperative was that the VP had to be ready to take over at a moment’s notice.) And there is no evidence that she hurt Biden in the election.
I’m not “second guessing” Biden’s pick. I didn’t give a damn who won the election, and I’m not the one who brought it up.
I just found it odd that, after making it clear he wanted 1) a woman 2) of color, he’d go with one who completely cratered in the Democratic nomination race, who didn’t bring swing state, or at least southern, vote mojo to the dance, and who nobody could spend more than two minutes listening to without panicking over the prospect of her being the one to “take over at a moment’s notice.”
I guess that last part might be a feature, not a bug, as it has Americans praying daily for Biden’s continued good health, but it didn’t help him get elected.
Again, your sense of what is “odd,” and your characterization of Harris, are just that….your views. The Biden team thought she was the best fit, and that decision did not hurt them in November 2020. That’s all I care about.
I would just add that Harris’ polling is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/kamala-harris-favorability
And there is this, too:
“Moreover, the pick earns high marks from key constituencies: Democrats (84 percent) overwhelmingly approve of Harris’ selection, as do Black voters (79 percent). Majorities of voters under age 35 (56 percent), 35-44 (61 percent) and 65 and older (55 percent) approve of Biden’s choice; only among voters aged 45-64 does the pick not earn majority support.
“A plurality of independents, 44 percent, approve of Biden’s choice, greater than the 27 percent who disapprove…
“Another poll conducted immediately following Biden’s choice, an ABC News/Ipsos survey released early Thursday, also shows more voters calling the pick “excellent” or “good” (47 percent) than “not so good” or “poor” (29 percent)….”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/13/voters-approve-kamala-harris-vp-pick-394734
Did she hurt Biden as badly as Palin hurt McCain in 2008? Probably not, for the simple reason that for most people the choice boiled down to “Trump” or “someone other than Trump.”
She may not have even cost him any states. Although since black voter turnout in 2020 remained below 2012 levels in all age demographics, picking a better veep nominee might have helped him do better than just scrape by in e.g. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Why would you pick 2012 as your baseline? Obama was an incumbent, and the first African American president. Biden was neither.
Harris cost Biden no states, as you say. So, again, what was the harm? She didn’t hurt him at all. And your take on WI and PA makes no more sense than your take on Florida. Biden won those states. He got all the Electoral Votes from those states. Winning them by more wouldn’t make any difference. And that’s even assuming Biden would have won those states by more having an unknown two-term Congresswoman rather than Harris. A big assumption.
Again, Biden, it seems to me, or his team, if you prefer, allocated their resources and made their decisions near perfectly. They spent just enough in all the battleground states but one to win them, and they did not waste resources on states that they could not win.
Their VP pick was, given the constraints of demographics, the “safe” pick. Just as Biden himself was.
“Why would you pick 2012 as your baseline?”
Perhaps because it was the last election which the Democratic candidate won, and because black voter turnout dropped off in 2016? Whether those turnout numbers could be regained seems relevant as a metric for what Harris brought to the ticket.
You still don’t seem to understand that an investment of money, candidate selection, etc. in a state that one isn’t going to win can make a difference in whether one wins other states. If I can force my opponent to spend an extra million dollars and three days in a state he’d otherwise have had in pocket, that’s a million dollars and three days he can’t spend in a state that was already competitive.
2012 is not a good baseline for the reasons I already mentioned, which you have ignored.
And there is such a thing as being too cute. Spending money in states that you can’t win can backfire, if the other side doesn’t take the bait. Better perhaps to just straighforwardly husband your resources for states you can win. Again, Biden did everything right, and won virtually all the states that he could win. In 2016, Hillary and her team were hammered for wasting money on states that they couldn’t win, and fell just short in states that they could win, and thus lost the overall election. I don’t see the logic in criticizing Biden for not spending more time or money, or squandering his VP pick, in an attempt to put Florida in play. He didn’t need Florida. He had enough resources to win the states that he did need, and could win. He won the election. Good enough for me.
I’m not sure why you think I’m “criticizing” Biden. Politicians make poor choices all the time, and that particular poor choice didn’t cost him the election.
Sounds like criticism to me. He should have picked person A instead of person B. Calling someone’s choice “poor” is surely critical, not laudatory. The things that people will argue about…..
“Critical” implies disapproval.
I neither approved nor disapproved of Biden’s choice because I didn’t really give a damn who served Trump’s second and Obama’s third term.
I also don’t care whether Tiger Woods wins a golf tournament, but if I happen to see him grabbing a three-iron for a putt, I’ll notice that he’s making a poor choice.
Split that hair.
“Weird to me how some posters…like to continue to fight a battle…endlessly. Long after the thread has dissappeared.”
From you such a lesson?
1/ “Biden led Sanders…in the Black vote, for the entire six month period leading up to the brief, Feb 2020 blip (when they were statistically tied)…So, you are just wrong about that.”
I’d be wrong if I claimed he wasn’t ahead, but, in fact, yr falsifying my claim.
I never claimed Biden did not lead during most of that period:
a/ My simple, clearly stated, factual claim has been that over 6 mo., Sanders steadily gained w/Blacks until (have it yr way) he ‘statistically’ ran even.; and
b/ this fact supported my interpretive claim that a panicked DP machine – faced with the imperative of a Black VP – chose a VP even though she could never follow Biden – himself a presidential nominee of desperate, last resort.
2/ “Black voters certainly were not put off my her, as the Biden-Harris ticket did just fine with Black voters in the general election.”
Harris has always polled badly w/Black voters – as w/White. Why she flamed out early. Based on those poll numbers, it is evasive to say, Black voters weren’t “put off” by her:
Post-Clyburn, Blacks voted for Biden. Then and now, Harris is an unpopular, back seat place holder w/a non-White face. She satisfied the letter but not the spirit of the informal quid pro quo w/Clyburn and the Southern Black machine.
Other than for that purpose, she was politically useless – and now is a political encumbrance.
3/ “if the ‘right liberal base ‘liked her too, again, why is that a bad thing?”
Again falsifying my clearly stated views. I made it clear it was the right liberal DP machine that chose her – the “right liberal base” may have liked her politics (if not her), but she wasn’t chosen by or for them.
She was chosen to minimally satisfy the Black southern machine (news talk of a Black VP only appear after the Clyburn campaign) – so much the worse for them and all Dem’s now.
Also, Clyburn on Harris:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-biden-election-jim-clyburn/
“Sanders steadily gained”
No. He. Did. Not.
July 2019 Biden 38, Sanders 21
Sept 2019 Biden 41, Sanders 20
Dec 2019 Biden 44, Sanders 29
Jan 2020 Biden 48, Sanders 20
Again, you are simply wrong as a matter of fact with respect to the premise of your main claim.
And I still don’t get what you are going on about, with respect to Harris. She’s a woman of color. Despite what you say, her presence on the ticket did not seem to hurt Biden with Black voters, AT ALL. She is more of a centrist Dem, yes. So what? Was Clyburn unhappy with Harris? I see no reason to think so.
I’d even have a hard time describing Harris as Black. She appears more Indian.
Whatever her background is, she’s been worthless as a VP, displaying no agenda whatsoever.
This is just salvaging the remaining Ukrainian forces and try to buy more time. U.S. at this point needs to keep the capital. Those who run away today, will fight another day mentality.
Imagining that Ukraine could take Crimea is either theatrics or dementia. Hard to tell with these people.
You guys said the exact thing about the Ukrainians re-taking Kherson city.
And you think differently? You actually believe Russia will allow that? Crimea is a real red line and even you know that.
Russia cannot place a red line on land they stole.
Ukraine is in its right to try to take it back, will it be difficult, yes but I believe is actually doable, it depends on how bad the Ukrainians want it. They only thing Russia can do to keep that from happening is continuing throwing cannon fodders at it and or drop a nuke.
They can and they did and for good reasons. I might not agree with Russia invading Ukraine, but I agree wholeheartedly on them annexing Crimea. They had NO choice. And, no, it isn’t doable for Ukraine to retake Crimea, no matter how bad they want it. And it never will be without WW3 breaking out.
No matter what happens in this war, it should not lead to World War III. One silver lining of the Cuban missile crisis was that when it was over, Kennedy and Khrushchev both appreciated that nuclear war was unwinnable and unthinkable. I was overjoyed when the Soviet Communists decided that holding the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact together was not worth a nuclear war. It is my hope that there are still people in the White House and the Kremlin who recognize that nothing can justify the US or Russia using nuclear weapons under any circumstances. And I hope there are people in both capitals and chains of command who will do whatever it takes to prevent an out of control President from launching a nuclear first strike or a second strike. A nuclear war between the US and Russia would be worse than any existential threat to either country.
You agree with Russians taking Crimea? I wonder why cause That goes against everything you’ve ever said.
No, it doesn’t. I even got in an argument with you about the very subject of Crimea.
Taking Crimea Is still imperialistic just like if the US takes land from any country because if feels threatened by Russia. You cannot take land from neighboring countries just cause you feel “threatened” by NATO. I thought you were against that.kind of behavior. You are not very consistent with your positions. Hey
Were you talking about your favorite last 30 years that somehow ignores Ukraine’s struggle?
If the US was in a similar situation where their sole warm water port was in peril because of a hostile military alliance, I would be all for annexation. Keep trying.
Yes, their sole warm waters. Not their neighbor’s warm water.
You are a self licking ice cream cone. All that US this and US that and here you are supporting Russia imperialistic endeavors.
Before Russia annexed Crimea the United States stole Ukraine from the Ukrainians by ousting their elected government and replacing it with a US puppet regime which serves the interests of the United States government instead of the interests of the Ukrainian people. So Russia took their naval base away from US/NATO so it couldn’t be used by US/NATO to threaten Russia.
I wasn’t around in 1783 to support Russia’s imperialistic endeavors. But I would be for all countries to give back every inch of territory they have taken from others. What would the US look like?
Well, then you already failed. Russia, not the US took Crimea and the East and you are supporting Russia just as i have claimed all this time. Boy was i right
Check your vectors bro, if you want to go back centuries to support your flawed point, then what a cheap argument you have but even more reasons for Ukraine to fight for their right as a nation.
Failed what? What the f*ck are you even talking about? I don’t support anyone in the war no matter how hard you want to believe that. The US/NATO are using the country of Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. On the matter of Crimea, I support Russia’s right to protect the warm water port they lease from becoming a NATO port. They reacted to US/NATO provocations, nothing more. Ukraine is fighting for the US/NATO and they will continue to die for that with your blessings.
Blah, you support Russia taking Crimea and i dont see you (ever) complaining about the annexation. That’s all.
Don’t dress it up. You support Russia taking neighboring land.
There is no reason whatsoever for any country to take another country’s land.
Pff GTFOH.
I agree with the annexation and I gave my reasons why. And I didn’t try to dress it up.
And there was no reason for the US/NATO to force Russia into reacting like anyone else backed into a similar corner.
Crimea has 10x the population, has always been Russian, and is on the other side of a free fire isthmus, fool, but go ahead and throw another helping of Ukrainians into the fire.
Sometimes even idiots get it. While it lasts.
This is a battle that never should have been fought. It is none of our business what happens in Ukraine. we certainly should not have moved NATO and it s Nukes closer to Russia. Bringing in Tanks will only remind the of the Panzers in WW2 that almost destroyed the Soviet Union. The munition makers and sellers are making a financial killing testing weapons on the Russians. The Russians are fighting for their countries survival.No one should be comfortable with the possible use of Nukes being used. And while this is going on the US economy is hurting. No money is available for the populations needs like Roads,Food,Medicine,Housing,Climate Change and a reform of our Political,Social not to mention Education. I make the case that our rulers prefer an ignorant electorate.
Great insight, Wendell.
The Chinese, for example, have eschewed never ending war and employed their resources to uplift their people out of poverty. The average Chinese citizen is now better-off than their Amerikkkan counterparts.
Every day the “news” deviates further and further from reality. Supposedly serious people discussing the “chances” of Ukraine retaking all the occupied territories, when everyone should know the chance is ZERO. They have, at great cost to themselves, taken back one city on the wrong side of the river in the South, and a whole lot of nothing in the north east. And every single day they repeat the endless refrain of “give me more, give me more, give me more, the situation is desperate”. Meanwhile, Russia is only starting to get the results from their increased mobilization. That indicates that Russia is only getting stronger, while Ukraine is only getting weaker. Any sane person would Make Peace Now, while Ukraine still has a country left.
Ukraine has begun attacking Russia along its 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 border. It’s too early for bystanders like myself to know why. But one possibility is to shift Russia’s attention from the southern and eastern fronts. I do not rule out the possibility that Zelensky still has his sites set on Crimea.
That just means that Zelensky will go ahead and do it since he’s been wanting to draw NATO and the U.S. directly into the conflict.