Why did Biden label Putin a terrorist?

Joe Biden's address to the American people caused a wide resonance in the United States and the world, as it made strong statements about the terrorists Hamas and Vladimir Putin. As the American president noted, the United States will not allow either Hamas or the Russian dictator to win.

Next, the White House sent a request to Congress for the allocation of package assistance to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, as well as for defense spending by the United States itself in the amount of $106 billion, of which Kiev is entitled to an amount of 61.4 billion. How will Biden’s policy towards the Kremlin and how much the Trumpists can prevent increased aid to Ukraine

In the nearly three years of his presidency, Joe Biden has addressed the American nation from the Oval Office of the White House only twice. He made his first address in June 2023, after US lawmakers of both parties supported a bill to raise the US debt ceiling, thereby preventing a default.

In a new 15-minute prime-time speech on the evening of October 19, Biden laid out his clear case for four core issues that he believes will unite Americans and the global community. The first task is to assist Ukraine in order to prevent Vladimir Putin's attempts to take over the country. The second goal is to eliminate the threat from Hamas. The third is to prevent the spread of both military conflicts. And finally, the fourth and final goal is to achieve all this without additional casualties and suffering among civilians in already conflict-affected areas.

“Hamas and Putin pose different threats. But they have something in common: they want to completely destroy the neighboring democracy. For Hamas, the purpose of existence is the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. At the same time, Putin denies that Ukraine has or ever had statehood. He claims that the USSR created Ukraine,” said Joe Biden.

As observers insist, in the speech of the US President this was one of the most fundamental moments for Ukraine and the entire civilized world.

“The revolutionary moment is that Biden voiced the official US position, putting Putin on the same level as Hamas. Please note, while expressing support for Taiwan, the US President did not make such attacks against the Chinese leadership. Previously, the White House line was as follows: “We will support Kyiv as long as necessary.” How much is needed for what? For the moment, as previously believed in Washington, until Putin and his entourage come to their senses and stop killing Ukrainians. That’s it, now that the Russian dictator is on the same level as terrorists, Washington no longer counts on the Kremlin’s “prudence,” political expert Pyotr Oleshchuk tells Apostrophe.

Joe Biden called military-technical and financial assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan the best investment in the security of the United States itself, which is involved in the global confrontation with authoritarian and terrorist regimes.

Immediately after Biden's address, the White House sent a request to Congress for $106 billion to provide assistance and resources to Ukraine ($61.4 billion), Israel ($14.3 billion), Taiwan, and to secure the US border with Mexico.

An important detail: 30 billion of the indicated 61.4 billion should go to the Pentagon’s balance sheet as part of the program to supply arms to Ukraine and replenish its own reserves.

“Indeed, this is an investment in US security. The logic is simple: if we do not restore the global rules of the game, based on law and justice, then we will have to spend significantly more financially, not to mention people’s lives. In parallel, such expenses stimulate the American military-industrial complex. Biden himself admitted that Ukraine in some places receives outdated but still effective weapons from American warehouses, which are being replaced with new models. And here is an important point for the US military-industrial complex to work quickly. The Pentagon cannot remove everything from its warehouses. They have their own needs, so we need growth in the production of BC, otherwise we risk being on a starvation diet next year,” Vladimir Dubrovsky, senior economist at CASE-Ukraine, tells Apostrophe.

There is also an important nuance that out of the indicated 106 billion dollars, the White House is asking for 14.4 billion to be allocated for military, intelligence and other types of assistance related to defense issues, and 149 million were requested under the heading “countering nuclear and radiological risks.”

“Previously, an increase in activity was recorded at the nuclear test sites of the USA, China and the Russian Federation, which is not a complete guarantee that the parties are preparing for a nuclear confrontation, but the Kremlin continues to brandish its nuclear club. The occupiers are threatening provocations at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, and the Russians have demonstratively refused to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty. The latter is aimed specifically at the United States, which forces the White House to take into account the “nuclear factor” when planning foreign policy expenditures,” military expert Ivan Stupak tells Apostrophe.

An indicator that Washington soberly assesses the Kremlin’s blackmail with nuclear weapons and is ready to raise rates in response was the supply of ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, the appearance of which on the battlefield became known after the attacks on the occupiers’ bases in Berdyansk and Lugansk.

“Biden’s speech publicly highlighted the change in Washington’s position, which is ready to cross yet another Putin “red line.” Everyone has probably already forgotten that even before the open invasion, these “lines” began with the supply of Javelin anti-tank systems to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which would not have become any sensation now. With the provision of F-16s, most likely, there will be a similar story - the Russians will learn about their appearance in the skies over Ukraine when the first missiles and aerial bombs fall on their heads,” added Ivan Stupak.

For the Biden team, his speech in support of our country, Israel and Taiwan became an element of the presidential campaign, which has de facto begun. The current US President, judging by his rhetoric, will be running for the next term under the slogans of fighting authoritarian and terrorist regimes in order, on the one hand, to protect American interests, and on the other, to rally the entire free and democratic world around Washington.

Biden’s supposedly “globalist” agenda is opposed by the “isolationist” Donald Trump. The former US president, despite scandals, trials and criminal investigations, has the greatest chance of being nominated by the Republican Party. Trump took Biden’s current speech with hostility, for some reason comparing his opponent to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was engaged in “appeasement” of Hitler, although Biden did not make any concessions to Putin. Despite this, Trump is confident that it is Biden who is “inciting” another world war.

“Trump acts in the logic of the election campaign, criticizing absolutely everything that Biden does and without any thought to how logical or justified his claims are. Trump does not answer all the uncomfortable questions regarding his foreign policy while in the Oval Office (the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, attempts to “normalize” relations with the DPRK, flirting with the Kremlin) and immediately goes on to attack. They say that if he were president, then there would be no open war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, although his real achievements in the diplomatic field look modest,” explained Pyotr Oleshchuk.

The next point, which is negative for both politicians, is the crisis in the Republican Party itself and the inability of the formal Republican majority in the lower house of Congress to elect a speaker, along with the left Kevin McCarthy. Trumpist and opponent of aid to Ukraine Jim Jordan dropped out of the speakership race after a series of unsuccessful party votes. It is expected that the name of the new Republican challenger will become known on Monday, October 23.

For the White House, the problem is that without a speaker, the House remains gridlocked. American legislators cannot put to a vote bills related to assistance to Ukraine and Israel, as well as budget documents for financing the American government itself, which risks turning into a government shutdown in November.

“Joe Biden, sending a request to Congress for the said 106 billion, was aware that everything would come down to the issue of electing a speaker and the crisis in the Republican Party as a whole. Here the Democrats who voted for McCarthy's resignation acted precisely within the framework of the election campaign. They did not save the Republican speaker, realizing that the resignation would provoke a conflict in the opposing camp. Now the House of Representatives faces two options - to elect a speaker or appoint an acting speaker. the head of the Chamber, who could at least put bills to a vote,” Vladimir Fesenko, head of the Penta Center for Applied Political Research, tells Apostrophe.

The position of the White House here looks confident, regardless of who the Republicans nominate as speaker - a Trumpist or a conservative. Even a Donald Trump supporter will find it extremely difficult to block aid to Ukraine, since it comes in a package with aid for Israel, Taiwan and Pentagon defense spending. So in this regard, our connection with Tel Aviv can benefit us, despite the fears of some experts that Israel will pull the blanket on itself.