French call for NATO exit

Thousands of angry French protesters have gathered in the French capital to call for the country’s withdrawal from the US-led NATO military alliance. The protesters have also called for the resignation of the country’s President Emmanuel Macron.

The demonstration reflects similar rallies being held across Europe in opposition to their respective government’s support for the war in Ukraine. The constant supply of arms by mainly NATO members has prolonged the conflict in Eastern Europe, leading to the suffering of civilians caught up in the cross fire.

When Russia expressed legitimate concerns about the NATO military’s eastward expansion toward its border, it opened the door to discussion, negotiation and proposals on security guarantees. However, these were ignored which many critics said, at the time, will lead to a military confrontation that will hurt ordinary Europeans. In this case, Ukrainian civilians are suffering from the human cost and ordinary civilians are falling into poverty.

Russia’s sense of insecurity in the face of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization seemed quite genuine, but critics say the media coverage has dismissed Moscow's initial concerns.

Opposition to NATO has been strong in Europe. The military alliance’s summits are always met with anti-war demonstrations. In June this year, protesters marched during an anti-NATO rally ahead of the summit that was held in Madrid. The organizers said the American-led military alliance is not the solution to the war in Ukraine. US arms manufacturers have made lucrative profits from the war.

Last month, an estimated 70,000 people protested in Prague against the Czech government, calling on the ruling coalition to do more to control soaring energy prices and voicing opposition to the European Union and NATO.

For many years, the Kremlin has made it clear that if NATO continued to mass troops and weapons on the Russian border, the expansion would likely be met with serious resistance by the Russians, even with military action. That view was not just limited to Russian officials. Even some prominent American foreign policy experts backing the same possible scenario. The current director of the CIA, William Burns, has been warning about the provocation and consequences of NATO’s expansion on Russia for more than 20 years now.  

On the other hand, Europe’s decision to cave into American pressure and impose unprecedented sanctions on Moscow has heavily restricted the gas supplies to the continent which have instead pushed energy prices up, leaving many in poverty. Europe relied on 40% of Russian gas before the conflict erupted.

The shortage of energy on the continent and rising prices for the fuel has been met with angry voters bringing down governments at the polling stations.

A recent poll by Elabe reveals that support for anti-Russian sanctions is on the decline across France. The survey shows only 40% of the French population are in favor of the anti-Russian sanctions. The poll also reveals that 32% of French people think the anti-Russia sanctions must be restricted to diminish their effect on the livelihoods of the French people.

The opposition French Patriots party again called for the demonstrations after the initial protests that took place on September 3rd. The protesters want Macron to leave office and withdraw from both NATO and the European Union.

The French government, like others in Europe, is adopting or considering various emergency measures ahead of the winter, such as the possibility of three-hour power outages in the United Kingdom.

As inflation levels are biting, a group of French intellectuals, including Nobel literature prize winner Annie Ernaux, have urged people to join the protests being organized by the left for next week. They accuse President Macron of not doing enough to help the poor cope with high prices while the profits of some companies are spiking.

The group of 69 signatories, including writers, film directors and university teachers, said in a text published in the Journal Du Dimanche that "Emmanuel Macron is using inflation to widen the wealth gap, to boost capital income at the expense of the rest." 

"It is all a matter of political will," said the text, co-signed by Ernaux, who on Thursday became the first French woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.

The statement also said the government has not done enough to fight the skyrocketing energy prices and declined to raise taxes on companies making enormous profits as a result of high inflation.

The signatories have also urged the public to join the protest march planned for October 16, which is being organized by the political movement of the France Unbowed party, which this year struck an alliance with more moderate leftwing parties to form France's largest opposition bloc.

Next week’s protest is being promoted as "against the high cost of living and climate inaction". It comes as Macron faces stiff resistance from unions over a planned pensions reform and as strikes by workers demanding a pay rise from retail to refineries have disrupted parts of the economy.

There is more misery for the French government as a number of fuel service stations are grappling with supply problems amid strike action at refineries run by major oil companies TotalEnergies and ExxonMobil. The walkout by members of the national trade union center CGT mainly over pay has disrupted operations at refineries and storage facilities. The industrial action has forced the government to tap into the country’s strategic reserves.

Environment Minister Christophe Bechu earlier told French media the government will, for the time being, not be rationing petrol for drivers or restrict the use of service stations in response to supply problems. "We haven't reached this point yet," Bechu said when asked if the government would impose any national measures beyond the bans already in place in some regions on filling large flat-sided metal containers for storing or transporting petrol.

The strikes at the refineries of ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies will continue, union officials at both companies have said. “It is continuing everywhere,” a CGT representative said, adding that there had been no contact from TotalEnergies since Saturday’s call by the union for the company’s managers to begin talks on pay.

In some areas, the share of affected petrol stations is much higher than the national average. An interactive map compiled by the website mon-essence.fr, where more than 100,000 users have reported outages in recent days, shows a large majority of petrol stations in and around Paris were marked out of service.

Across France, long queues have been seen outside fuel stations. "The waiting line will take you at least one-and-a-half hours or two", motorist Jean Galibert said as he entered the last stretch of a 700-metre tailback in front of a Paris service station. Another motorist, Franck Chang, said, "This situation right behind me reflects the state of France. We're struggling."

Reports say the strikes have reduced France's total refinery output by more than 60% which will be seen as another blow to the French government. On Sunday, TotalEnergies claimed to have offered to bring forward wage talks, in response to union demands, as it strongly seeks to end the industrial action that has disrupted supplies to almost a third of French petrol stations.

Amid warnings that energy shortages and rising inflation are set to extend in coming winter, further protests and anger at governments’ economic policies across Europe are expected to expand.

 

Young Americans turning against Israel

A new extensive research has revealed American public views toward Washington’s foreign policy with the majority of younger American opposing Washington's arms sales to the Israeli regime. The study also reveals massive support among the Americans toward a return to the Iran nuclear deal.

The survey conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation suggests that the younger American generation is becoming politically more aware of Israeli atrocities and the insecurity it brings to West Asia. The majority of those surveyed (18-29 years old) disapprove the ongoing arms assistance to Israel. Albeit Americans of older age groups (above 60 years of age) are more supportive of the US military assistance to the occupying regime.

The United States provides Israel with some US$4 billion in annual military aid. That makes the regime the largest recipient of American military aid. However, the money comes from the pockets of American taxpayers, many of whom are not aware that their money is funding genocide and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine. 

Nearly 80% support the Biden administration negotiating a return to the Iran nuclear deal. There has been strong regional and international debate over how much ordinary Americans support their government's military assistance to authoritarian, occupying, apartheid regimes and dictatorships. Washington regularly claims security reasons for the assistance it provides but very few buy this argument. 

Mark Hannah, a senior fellow at Eurasia Group Foundation said, "We began this survey five years ago because we believed lawmakers and foreign policy leaders conducting foreign policy on behalf of the American people would benefit from a window into their opinions and priorities." 

Hannah expressed hope, "Those inside the Beltway use this survey to make the activities they pursue more sensitive to — and informed by — the opinions of their constituents, and to bridge the gap between the concerns of policymakers and those of ordinary Americans."

Just last month, the US aviation giant Boeing revealed that it will be providing the Israeli regime with four Boeing refueling military aircrafts in the coming years as part of the free military aid it receives from Washington.

The contract between Boeing and the US Defense Department is to the tune US$927 million for the four KC-46A aircraft. In essence, that means the US taxpayer will pay the price by footing the bill of US$927 million. Boeing will make a considerable profit and the regime will find more opportunities to create regional instability.

The Israeli war minister, Benny Gantz said, "This is yet another testament to the powerful alliance and strategic ties between the defense establishments and governments of Israel and the United States."

As per the norm the war minister and other regime’s officials alongside their counterparts in Washington cite Iran as the pretext for the massive military aid budget. 

US military aid to Israel has mostly bipartisan backing in Congress and continues to be approved by a majority of lawmakers each year.

The University of Maryland found less than one percent of respondents viewed Israel as one of Washington's top two allies. Over the years there have been other polls that reflect the findings by the Eurasia Group Foundation. Earlier this year, a Pew Research poll also showed critical views toward Israel among younger Americans - respondents (under 30 years of age) 61% of this age group had favorable views of the Palestinian people.

Also this year, the University of Maryland found less than one percent of respondents viewed Israel as one of Washington's top two allies.

Zuri Linetsky, a research fellow at EGF, told Middle East Eye, "We asked the question about ranking why you would stop selling [arms] and specifically respondents who were against selling arms to Israel said that it violates human rights through its enduring occupation of Palestine. So that resonates with people."

The latest poll also shows American opposition to the ongoing US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, with nearly 70% of respondents disapproving the massive sale of US weapons to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has used Western-supplied weapons, especially Americans, to level Yemeni infrastructure to the ground.

This is despite growing concern among rights groups that more arms sales to countries, such as Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen or Israel attacking other nations, continue to be approved by the Biden administration. In August, President Biden approved a massive US$5 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for missile technology.

The study also shows how respondents are in favor of curbing US military adventurism overseas and the increasing support of more efforts by the US administration towards diplomacy, even with American adversaries.

Among the top takeaways of the Eurasia Group Foundation findings in the West Asia region are:

On the Iran Nuclear Deal:

Regardless of the partisan leanings, Democrat or Republican, most Americans are in favor of negotiations with Iran. Nearly 80% support the Biden administration negotiating a return to the Iran nuclear deal. That support is notably bipartisan; more than 70% of Republicans believed the US should continue to pursue these negotiations.

"We found that there are vocal critics on both sides of the political aisle in Congress, against pursuing an agreement with Iran, but those views don't necessarily reflect what we're finding amongst the survey respondents," Lucas Robinson, an external relations associate at the foundation, told MEE.

The Biden administration has continued with his predecessor's policies on Iran; the so-called maximum pressure campaign that have led to the death of children with rare diseases and cancer patients alongside a whole range of other humanitarian issues that have hurt ordinary Iranian people.

On War Powers:

Roughly 80% believe the president's war-making abilities should be more restricted by Congress, representing a consecutive two-year increase. The US has waged numerous invasions of countries, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. It continues to occupy parts of West Asia illegally and is invoked in secret military programs without the consent of Congress. 

On Afghanistan:

Nearly two-thirds of respondents think the most important lesson from the war in Afghanistan was that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building or that it should only send troops into harm's way if vital national interests are threatened.

With regards to the issue of nuclear weapons, nearly 75% are concerned with nuclear weapons. Respondents who have served or are currently serving in the military are significantly less concerned than those without military experience.

"For the vast majority of the 21st century, the United States has been involved in conflicts and in far-flung parts of the world. So the question is, is this what the American people want? Does this represent their interests?" Linetsky asks.

"This is very much a test to see where people who take surveys fall down on what American policy is towards the world and what they think their leaders' priorities should be, be they international or domestic."

The White House is at odds with most respondents - a diverse group of Americans across the country from different religions, political affiliations, age groups and income levels.

The foundation surveyed more than 2,000 voting-age Americans online with detailed questions about US foreign policy and America's global role.

 

 

Gold losing glitter

Gold is losing its shine. The precious metal, whose price neared a record high at the onset of the war in Ukraine, has come back to earth in the second half of the year after a string of US interest rate increases and a surge in the value of the dollar.

Benchmark gold futures prices in New York are at US$1,729 per ounce as of early October, down 15% from early March. At one point in late September the benchmark fell to US$1,626, the lowest since April 2020.

Gold's strength early in the year was a reflection of its reputation as a haven in times of insecurity. But its subsequent fall is exposing the close inverse relationship between demand for gold and dollar strength.

The fall in gold prices came on the back of accelerating US interest rate hikes. In September, the Federal Reserve raised the benchmark rate by 75 basis points (0.75%) for the third consecutive time. Since March, Fed has raised rates five times to tame inflation. 

The dollar index -- which measures the US dollar's strength against a basket of six influential currencies such as the euro -- soared to 114 in late September, hitting the highest in two decades. A strong dollar weighs on gold, as the yellow metal is often described as a "stateless currency" that investors buy when there is little trust in traditional currencies.

Furthermore, since gold earns no return for its owner, higher interest rates increase the incentive to switch from holding gold to holding dollars.

The Fed is expected to maintain its hawkish approach this year amid continued inflation. In August, the US Consumer Price Index registered an 8.3% increase compared to the same month last year, up from a market consensus of an 8% increase. In the September meeting, the Fed increased its year-end rate forecast to 4.4%, from the 3.4% it had previously expected in the June meeting.

Despite the headwinds for gold in the short term, analysts say the current price level is at the lower end and forecast a rebound next year. 

Itsuo Toshima, a Japan-based financial market analyst for Toshima & Associates, expects gold to range between US$1,800 and US$2,200 per ounce next year. "Amid persistent inflation, investors will soon start fretting over stagflation," said Toshima. He argued that even though inflation can somewhat be tamed, there is a limitation because some costs, such as rent, are unlikely to fall immediately.

Toshima expects the currently strong dollar to peak this year, as it lacks additional bullish factors for next year. "When there are no more bullish factors to strengthen the dollar further, the dollar index will reverse course to fall sharply," he added. 

Internationally, Citi is broadly bullish on gold, expecting prices to rebound above US$1,900 by mid-2023. Goldman Sachs in August forecast gold prices 12 months later at US$1,950. 

Amid continued uncertainty over geopolitical risks and the Ukraine war, gold market analyst Koichiro Kamei at Tokyo's Market Strategy Institute argues that there will be stable gold demand. The sharp fall in cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin on the back of US monetary tightening was alarming for investors, whereas gold prices remained relatively firm, Kamei added. 

The direction of gold prices is being closely watched in India and China, where demand for purchases of physical gold is traditionally strong. The two countries jointly account for around 60% of global demand for gold jewelry, bars and coins.

Ahead of Diwali, one of Hinduism's most popular festival seasons, which falls in October, demand for gold jewelry, bars and coins is expected to increase. The wedding season also comes between November and February, during which gold jewelry sells well. Analysts say despite the headwinds of a weak rupee, traditional demand for gold will still be strong. Gold prices are around 139,000 rupees per ounce as of early October, up 1.2% from three months ago, while gold prices in dollars fell 3% over the same period.

In China, the depreciation of the yuan is acting as a headwind for retail investors. In late September, the yuan plunged to the lowest level against the dollar since 2008. According to the World Gold Council, gold prices in yuan are 4% higher compared with three month ago.

Still, consumer demand for physical gold has little impact on international bullion prices, analysts say. The bigger determinant is how investors manage funds in the gold futures market while taking interest rates and the global economic outlook into account. 

Tatsufumi Okoshi, senior economist at Nomura Securities, expects the Fed to start cutting rates in September next year, a tailwind for the yellow metal, which yields no interest. "As fears over recession loom over and demand for safe-haven assets continues, we will see gold bounce back," said Okoshi.

 

OPEC Plus production cut decision attracts opposite reactions

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said a decision by the OPEC Plus to cut oil production was unhelpful and unwise for the global economy, especially emerging markets, the Financial Times quoted on Sunday.

"We're very worried about developing countries and the problems they face," Yellen told the newspaper in an interview.

As against this, Kremlin praised OPEC Plus for agreeing production cuts that had successfully countered the ‘mayhem’ sown by the United States in global energy markets.

The OPEC Plus decision to cut oil production despite stiff US opposition has further strained already tense relations between President Joe Biden and Saudi royal family, Reuters reported on Saturday.

The White House pushed hard to prevent the output cut. Biden hopes to keep US gasoline prices from spiking again ahead of midterm elections in which his Democratic party is struggling to maintain control of the US Congress.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was very good that such balanced, thoughtful and planned work of the countries, which take a responsible position within OPEC, is opposed to the actions of the United States.

"This at least balances the mayhem that the Americans are causing," Peskov said, according to Russian news agencies.

Peskov said that the United States had begun to lose its composure over the OPEC decision and was even trying to push additional volumes of its reserves into the market.

"They are trying to manipulate with their oil reserves by throwing additional volumes into the market. Such a game will not lead to anything good," Peskov said.

The worry for those tracking Europe's energy transition commitments is that these accumulated costs of LNG imports, alongside other expenses already incurred, drain both the funds available for de-carbonization projects and the level of ambition of the governments responsible for them.

There's an irony in that this potential diminished firepower comes when the appetite in society and government for weaning Europe off fossil fuels has likely never been greater.

But funding has always been a critical component of every energy transition plan, and the reality is that if government and commercial budgets have already been drained by imports of fossil fuels to keep the economy going, there may be little left in the kitty to finance the transition to a greener energy system.

 

Iran State run live TV hacked by protesters

According to a BBC report, Iran’s state-run broadcaster was apparently hacked on air Saturday, with a news bulletin interrupted by a protest against the country’s leader. A mask appeared on the screen, followed by an image of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with flames around him. The group called itself “Adalat Ali”, or Ali’s Justice.

It comes after at least three people were shot dead when protesters clashed with security forces in new unrest over the death of Mahsa Amini. She was detained in Tehran by morality police for allegedly not covering her hair properly.

The 22-year-old Iranian Kurd died in custody on September 16, 2022, three days after her arrest. Her death has sparked an unprecedented wave of protest across the country.

Saturday’s TV news bulletin at 21:00 (17:30 GMT) was interrupted with images, which included Iran’s supreme leader with a target on his head, photos of Amini and three other women killed in recent protests.

One of the captions read “join us and rise up”, whilst another said “our youths’ blood is dripping off your paws”.

The interruption lasted only a few seconds before being cut off.

Such displays of rebellion against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are historically rare, and he wields almost complete power within Iran.

But following Amini’s death, there has been widespread open dissent.

Also on Saturday, social media videos emerged which seemed to show female students at a university in Tehran chanting “get lost” during a visit by President Ebrahim Raisi.

Earlier in the day, two people were killed in Sanandaj, including a man shot in his car after he sounded his horn in support of protesters.

A video shared online also showed a woman shot in the neck lying unconscious on the ground in Mashhad.

In Sanandaj, a police official said a man had been killed by “counter-revolutionaries”, the state-run news agency IRNA reported.

On Friday, Iran’s Forensic Medicine Organization said Amini had died from multiple organ failure caused by cerebral hypoxia — and not from blows to the head, as her family and protesters contend.

Rights groups say more than 150 people have been killed since the protests in the Islamic Republic began on September 17.

Shops in several cities have shut in support of the protesters, including in Tehran’s bazaar where some set fire to a police kiosk and chased the security forces away.

The protests reaching the bazaar in Tehran will ring alarm bells with Iranian leaders who have counted the merchants as among their supporters.

Bridge linking Russia and Crimea damaged

The bridge, commonly known as Crimean Bridge was built by Russia after it declared Crimea to be Russian territory in 2014. Russia uses it to move military equipment, ammunition, and personnel from Russia to battlefields in southern Ukraine. The bridge is particularly hated by Ukrainians as it is seen as a symbol of Russian occupation. However, Ukraine has not accepted responsibility of attack on the bridge.

Russian authorities said that a massive explosion involving a truck on Saturday caused a fire and destroyed a section of a bridge linking Russia and Crimea, killing at least three people. The bridge is regarded as a key supply route for Russian troops in southern Ukraine.

The Crimean Bridge, a US$3.69 billion (230 billion rubles) project, was constructed following the annexation of Crimea. Russia opened the first part of the span to car traffic in May 2018. The parallel bridge for rail traffic opened the following year. Before the bridge’s existence, the Crimean Peninsula could only be reached from Russia by sea or air.

The Crimean Bridge—also called Kerch Strait Bridge or Kerch Bridge—is a structure 19 kilometers (12 miles) in length that passes across the Kerch Strait and links southern Russia to the Crimean Peninsula. The Kerch Strait links the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

A truck exploded on the bridge. Russia’s National Anti-Terrorism Committee announced that the explosion caused a fire on the parallel rail section, where seven railway cars carrying fuel caught fire. The blast also caused a “partial collapse of two sections of the bridge.”

The Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement that the incident killed at least three people, “presumably the passengers of a car that was driving by the truck that exploded on the bridge.”

‘The bodies of a woman and a man were recovered from the water, their identities are being established,” the statement reads, according to Russian state-owned news agency TASS.

The Crimean Peninsula is the key to sustaining Russia’s military operations in the south. If the bridge is made inoperable, it would make it significantly more challenging to ferry supplies to the peninsula. While Russia seized the areas north of Crimea early during the invasion and built a land corridor to it along the Sea of Azov, Ukraine is pressing a counteroffensive to reclaim them.

The explosion on the Crimean Bridge took place hours after multiple explosions early Saturday hit the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, which triggered a series of secondary explosions.

While no one has yet to explicitly claim public responsibility for the attack, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s aide, Mikhail Podoliak, posted on Twitter saying the explosion is “the beginning.”

Podoliak previously in August threatened the bridge, telling The Guardian that the bridge is “an illegal construction and the main gateway to supply the Russian army in Crimea” and that “such objects should be destroyed.”

Armageddon Warning by Joe Biden, Desperation or Insanity

This morning I posted a blog, who is the Biggest Satan? Within few hours I am obliged to share President Joe Biden’s warning about the possibility of ‘Armageddon’. Over the last eight months, I have been saying that in this proxy war Ukrainians are the biggest losers. One point is sure that the US considers Putin a ‘bad guy’ and all US policies seem to be touching insanity.  

President Joe Biden’s warning about the possibility of ‘Armageddon’ rumbling from the battlefields of Ukraine has scrambled an already complicated picture in the eight-month conflict. He raised this warning during a recent appearance at a Democratic fundraiser. 

But White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, asked Friday if there were any new intelligence assessments that had caused Biden to “ratchet up the level of concern,” responded, “No.”

Jean-Pierre sought to cast the president’s words as a general warning about the dangers of an escalation and as a riposte to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s saber-rattling — not as an actual prediction that there would be a nuclear attack.

“We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture, nor do we have indications that Russia is preparing to imminently use nuclear weapons,” the press secretary told reporters on board a short Air Force One flight to Hagerstown.

The debate over Biden’s comments is in many ways a classic Washington back-and-forth, focused on the question of whether the president’s words were out of whack with intelligence assessments and whether the White House will now have to walk them back.

Ukraine has made startling gains against Russian forces in recent weeks, taking back enormous swathes of territory that Putin’s troops once held. Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky claimed late Thursday night that his forces had liberated more than 500 square kilometers of territory since the beginning of this month alone, after having run up much bigger gains throughout September.

But the Ukrainian gains have had the grimly ironic effect of making Putin more desperate— and more willing to countenance the kinds of tactics that have not previously been used since the Kremlin launched the invasion in February.

In a speech last week, Putain said that the United States had created a “precedent” for the use of nuclear weapons by its atomic bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War.

The idea that Putin might use nuclear weapons causes outrage for obvious reasons. But it has also stirred discussion as to what the United States and its allies might do in response.

The Biden administration has been adamant that it will not put American boots on the ground in Ukraine, even as it backs Kyiv with billions of dollars in military aid. 

National security adviser Jake Sullivan said last month that the US had warned Russia that there would be “catastrophic” consequences in the event of such a move.

But it’s simply not clear what those consequences might be. Experts advance various different ideas, most of which stop short of a direct American military attack.

“I would expect NATO would respond through the Ukrainians,” said Robert Wilkie, who served as Under Secretary of Defense during the Trump administration and is now a distinguished national security fellow at the America First Policy Institute. 

He suggested this could be done by using weapons supplied by the US and other Western powers to complete the encirclement of Putin’s troops in Crimea — meaning weapons would be used to take out their lines of retreat there, but NATO forces would never touch the ground in Ukraine.”

Joel Rubin, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of State during the Obama administration, cautioned against the idea that the use of nuclear weapons by Putin would necessarily be expected to bring a symmetrical and instant response.

“There is a narrative from some folks that if he uses nukes, we have to use nukes. But there is no winner in a nuclear war — everyone loses,” Rubin said. 

Instead, he suggested, “all options would be available and nuclear would be one of them, but that is not the preferred choice. There would certainly be new moves to completely cut Russia off from every actor on the planet, whereas now China and Saudi Arabia are still giving oxygen to this leader.”

“Maybe that would be enough,” Rubin added of such isolation. “Who knows?”

In some ways, it is the kind of scenario for which Biden is well-prepared. He was steeped in foreign policy throughout his decades in the Senate, including a stretch as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. His career has been long enough to encompass an era when there were real worries about nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Biden’s handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has won a degree of approval even from some ideological opponents, especially regarding his effectiveness in assembling and maintaining an international coalition.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate question of whether he overstepped with the “Armageddon” remark, perhaps raising the very tensions he is seeking to ease.

Wilkie, the Trump administration veteran, called it “very disturbing” that Biden would make such a remark apparently off-the-cuff at a fundraising dinner.

The gravity of the situation, Wilkie argued, “Demands going to the American people and explaining what’s at issue and what’s at stake — instead of these off-script, ‘I’m a tough guy’ moments.”