For instance, Biden has repeatedly said he does not want to engage in conflict with Russia, but he nevertheless continues to try and provoke his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, into a military response, which is dangerous on its face not because Russia's army is so big and bad -- the Ukrainians have proven otherwise -- but because Putin has a lot of nuclear weapons at his disposal.
In an op-ed someone wrote for him that was published last week in The New York Times, 'Biden' sought to clarify his government's position regarding Ukraine policy "amid what appears to much of the public as constant incremental escalation," Zero Hedge noted.
Critically, he argued that the United States is not seeking regime change regarding Putin nor is his administration attempting to escalate toward war with Russia.
"We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow," someone from Biden's administration wrote on his behalf.
"So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces," he noted further.
Zero Hedge notes further:
Now in the fourth month of war since the Feb. invasion, it's very telling that Biden would himself have to take pains to clarify this, suggesting that Moscow would perhaps be fully rational and justified seeing in Washington's economic war and (indirect) military participation in the form of training and unprecedented arms transfers aid a commitment to fighting Russia.
It's also no wonder than many observers might look upon America's Ukraine policy and be "confused," to say the least. While declaring that he doesn't want to fight Russia, Biden in the same NY Times op-ed unveiled he'll be sending "more advanced rocket systems and munitions" to Ukraine, which will "enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield."
The op-ed noted that arms already being sent to Ukraine will continue while adding that "billions more" in U.S. aid will be sent -- even as Americans struggle to find baby formula and he has left the southwestern border virtually wide open.
We will continue providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, powerful artillery and precision rocket systems, radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, Mi-17 helicopters and ammunition. We will also send billions more in financial assistance, as authorized by Congress.
He stressed further: "We have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table."
But it remains that cease-fire discussions between the warring sides have not taken place much at all over the past month after they broke down amid accusations and mistrust following the previous talks in Istanbul, Turkey.
Also, though he pledged to send additional advanced rocket systems, the Biden op-ed hinted that they won't be capable of ranges that make strikes possible inside Russian borders.
"We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders," he said in the op-ed.
In addition, the op-ed claimed that his administration's policy is not to prolong the war in order to "inflict pain on Russia." But he then pivoted quickly, taking a contradictory tone by emphasizing that Moscow must pay a "heavy price" for its aggression. That echoed a previous statement by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who said the objective of the aid was a "weakened" Russia.
Putin is aware of the incoming rocket launchers and his government has warned of the consequences of sending them.
So the escalation continues.