Their Own Terrorist Filth Does Not Stink*
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 21 November 2023
by Maria Zakharova (link to original)
(Russia) on 21 November 2023
by Maria Zakharova (link to original)
Translated from
by Artem Belov.
Edited by Patricia Simoni.
*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.
Joe Biden’s op-ed in The Washington Post Saturday about the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East signifies three things:
First, it’s obviously one of the first steps on the eve of a U.S. presidential campaign ahead of next November’s election. Accordingly, Democratic Party leadership is previewing what Biden’s foreign policy will look like. It will look bad, absurd, wild -- in one word, unsightly.
Second, Biden is beginning this election season with a historic flop. Polls show that Biden’s approval rating is at arecord low; more than half of Americans don’t believe their president nor approve of his policies. It’s not Biden’s best moment as he begins his ninth decade.
Third, Biden wrote an article instead of addressing the nation, something that is more customary in the U.S. The reason for this is quite obvious: The president’s political team felt it is impossible for the president to deliver a live or recorded address when it comes to dealing with complex questions of foreign policy. That would have been even more unsightly.
Now let’s study the points of the article written by the U.S. president.
"Joe Biden" (I’m putting the author’s name in quotation marks, considering he definitely didn’t write this article) draws parallels between the Ukrainian and Middle East conflicts for a simple reason: Support for Israel is the only issue with bipartisan consensus at the highest levels of power in America. In everything else, the differences between Republicans and Democrats are insurmountable; the two sides couldn’t even agree over supporting Kyiv. Let’s remember that the Senate recently passed a stopgap funding bill that excluded aid to Ukraine.
Washington presents its perspective on the conflict through the prism of American exceptionalism. "Joe Biden" writes that "the United States is the essential nation." In the context of the Middle East, such a self-perception is not unique. Literally a couple of days before the new round of escalation, Jake Sullivan, the U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Biden’s closest ally published an obviously related article, "The Sources of American Power," in Foreign Affairs, claiming that, thanks to Washington, "the region is quieter than it has been for decades."
The events we all know about entered their active phase several days after this article was submitted for publication, which highlights the complete incompetence of the American establishment’s Middle Eastern efforts. It seems that the point about the "American nation being essential" will suffer a similar fate.
"Joe Biden" frequently refers to Hamas’ "terrorist strategy" overlooking the fact that Hamas was voted into power democratically in 2006; the U.S. played a significant role in bringing that about. Back then, Washington insisted on free elections in the region, but it practically boycotted the legally elected political power afterward. We have practically forgotten what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said then about the result of the plebiscite, remarking that "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing." The latest person to be caught off guard by America’s playing games with democracy appears to be Sullivan 17 years later, as his article, written before Oct 7 shows.
"Joe Biden" often appeals to international efforts; however, it’s because of Western countries, the U.S. first among them, that the last working and effective settlement mechanism was blocked –- the so-called "Middle East Quartet," comprising the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and the Russian Federation. When the brutal Oct. 23 escalation occurred, there was no authority to stop the bloodshed. Naturally, neither Biden nor the collective "Joe Biden" can even theoretically act as such an authority.
One can’t help but empathize with the Biden’s words about the need for a two-state solution to the Palestinian question, about how it is unacceptable to evict Palestinians from Gaza. But why doesn’t "Joe Biden" publicly direct those words to the government of Israel, which has to live with these American policies? After all, Israel could not have planned to resettle Palestinians without Washington.
One can’t help but ask why Biden accuses one side of the Israel Gaza conflict of using terrorism and does not acknowledge terrorism in the of the neo-Nazi Kyiv regime.
"Joe Biden" speaks of shelling hospitals, but Ukraine’s armed forces are shelling hospitals in the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, using Western weapons.
"Joe Biden" speaks of atrocities against the civilian population, but that’s precisely what the neo-Nazi bandits -– Kyiv’s combatants -– are doing.
"Joe Biden" speaks of the attack directed at the Israeli youth music festival, while Volodymr Zelenskyy’s collapsing army attacks a school during a children’s party.
That’s precisely why we speak of the Kyiv administration as a criminal regime engaging in terrorism. Why doesn’t "Joe Biden" see or feel that? Or does America’s own terrorist filth not stink?
There are many strange and contradictory things in Biden’s article. But the cherry on this stale cake is a well-known historic alogism: For some reason, the author of this article, under the signature of the president of the U.S., spoke of the order deploying two U.S. air carrier groups to the zone of conflict in the Middle East. When in history, one must ask, have carrier groups of the largest American army brought stability and facilitated a cease-fire? The names of the carriers themselves also appear self-defeating: "USS Dwight D. Eisenhower," during whose administration America participated in the Korean War, and the "USS Gerald R. Ford," in honor of the president who served during the Vietnam War era. If the American power incurs the fate of the U.S. in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, we can only feel sorry for Israel once again.
Joe Biden’s op-ed in The Washington Post Saturday about the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East signifies three things:
First, it’s obviously one of the first steps on the eve of a U.S. presidential campaign ahead of next November’s election. Accordingly, Democratic Party leadership is previewing what Biden’s foreign policy will look like. It will look bad, absurd, wild -- in one word, unsightly.
Second, Biden is beginning this election season with a historic flop. Polls show that Biden’s approval rating is at arecord low; more than half of Americans don’t believe their president nor approve of his policies. It’s not Biden’s best moment as he begins his ninth decade.
Third, Biden wrote an article instead of addressing the nation, something that is more customary in the U.S. The reason for this is quite obvious: The president’s political team felt it is impossible for the president to deliver a live or recorded address when it comes to dealing with complex questions of foreign policy. That would have been even more unsightly.
Now let’s study the points of the article written by the U.S. president.
"Joe Biden" (I’m putting the author’s name in quotation marks, considering he definitely didn’t write this article) draws parallels between the Ukrainian and Middle East conflicts for a simple reason: Support for Israel is the only issue with bipartisan consensus at the highest levels of power in America. In everything else, the differences between Republicans and Democrats are insurmountable; the two sides couldn’t even agree over supporting Kyiv. Let’s remember that the Senate recently passed a stopgap funding bill that excluded aid to Ukraine.
Washington presents its perspective on the conflict through the prism of American exceptionalism. "Joe Biden" writes that "the United States is the essential nation." In the context of the Middle East, such a self-perception is not unique. Literally a couple of days before the new round of escalation, Jake Sullivan, the U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Biden’s closest ally published an obviously related article, "The Sources of American Power," in Foreign Affairs, claiming that, thanks to Washington, "the region is quieter than it has been for decades."
The events we all know about entered their active phase several days after this article was submitted for publication, which highlights the complete incompetence of the American establishment’s Middle Eastern efforts. It seems that the point about the "American nation being essential" will suffer a similar fate.
"Joe Biden" frequently refers to Hamas’ "terrorist strategy" overlooking the fact that Hamas was voted into power democratically in 2006; the U.S. played a significant role in bringing that about. Back then, Washington insisted on free elections in the region, but it practically boycotted the legally elected political power afterward. We have practically forgotten what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said then about the result of the plebiscite, remarking that "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing." The latest person to be caught off guard by America’s playing games with democracy appears to be Sullivan 17 years later, as his article, written before Oct 7 shows.
"Joe Biden" often appeals to international efforts; however, it’s because of Western countries, the U.S. first among them, that the last working and effective settlement mechanism was blocked –- the so-called "Middle East Quartet," comprising the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and the Russian Federation. When the brutal Oct. 23 escalation occurred, there was no authority to stop the bloodshed. Naturally, neither Biden nor the collective "Joe Biden" can even theoretically act as such an authority.
One can’t help but empathize with the Biden’s words about the need for a two-state solution to the Palestinian question, about how it is unacceptable to evict Palestinians from Gaza. But why doesn’t "Joe Biden" publicly direct those words to the government of Israel, which has to live with these American policies? After all, Israel could not have planned to resettle Palestinians without Washington.
One can’t help but ask why Biden accuses one side of the Israel Gaza conflict of using terrorism and does not acknowledge terrorism in the of the neo-Nazi Kyiv regime.
"Joe Biden" speaks of shelling hospitals, but Ukraine’s armed forces are shelling hospitals in the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, using Western weapons.
"Joe Biden" speaks of atrocities against the civilian population, but that’s precisely what the neo-Nazi bandits -– Kyiv’s combatants -– are doing.
"Joe Biden" speaks of the attack directed at the Israeli youth music festival, while Volodymr Zelenskyy’s collapsing army attacks a school during a children’s party.
That’s precisely why we speak of the Kyiv administration as a criminal regime engaging in terrorism. Why doesn’t "Joe Biden" see or feel that? Or does America’s own terrorist filth not stink?
There are many strange and contradictory things in Biden’s article. But the cherry on this stale cake is a well-known historic alogism: For some reason, the author of this article, under the signature of the president of the U.S., spoke of the order deploying two U.S. air carrier groups to the zone of conflict in the Middle East. When in history, one must ask, have carrier groups of the largest American army brought stability and facilitated a cease-fire? The names of the carriers themselves also appear self-defeating: "USS Dwight D. Eisenhower," during whose administration America participated in the Korean War, and the "USS Gerald R. Ford," in honor of the president who served during the Vietnam War era. If the American power incurs the fate of the U.S. in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, we can only feel sorry for Israel once again.
Previous article![]( "The United States, Ukraine and Mexico")
Next article![]( "A World in Flames")