Once Again, Biden Doesn’t Have A Strategy For Ukraine. Where’s The Money Going?

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

The administration that claims to be “saving the soul of Democracy” has once again blown off the legislative branch of government.

When the law to give Ukraine another $61 billion made its way through Congress back in April, lawmakers appropriated the money with strings attached. One big string was section 504 of the bill, which stipulated that within 45 days, the administration had to present a strategy for the war. That strategy was due on June 4 — the Biden administration’s homework is now two months late.

You would be forgiven for thinking we formed a strategy before sending $175+ billion in American tax dollars to the plains of Eastern Europe. Two years into a war that has claimed a million lives, Congress asked for a plan that lays out “specific and achievable objectives” and prioritizes “United States national security interests.” Congress also reasonably requested a best guess on how our actions in Ukraine will be met by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

When the plan finally does arrive on lawmakers’ desks, expect a thousand pages of government pablum. Gone are the days when U.S. leaders clearly and concisely articulated reasons to go to war and our representatives voted on whether or not to commit the nation to conflict.

The United States hasn’t declared war since 1942. Every American knew the Roosevelt administration’s plans for the war on its first day — the president told Congress on December 8, 1941, that the U.S. would “win through to absolute victory” and make sure “this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.” Hard to believe now, but Roosevelt’s demanding “absolute victory” was controversial in that it meant the United States would need to conquer, not just defeat, the Empire of Japan and Third Reich.

Today, our leaders have stopped asking for the approval of the American people when it comes to conflict — ever since we rebranded the War Department, the Department of Defense has been much more war-like.

The war in Ukraine is the latest example. The American people have not been fully briefed on the risks of that far-away battle or the point of U.S. involvement. Our lame-duck president, when he addresses Ukraine at all, calls Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” and claims “we know Putin won’t stop at Ukraine.” That is the total depth of his argument, which he expects the American people to swallow without debate.

But the president’s invective does not make for sound strategy.

First, the risks. America is engaged in a proxy war with Russia, as evidenced by the Russian peoples’ belief that they are at war with the United States and the west. NATO’s expansion towards Moscow is a major red line for Russia. It is also a broken promise, as the United States pledged not to move NATO’s borders “one inch eastward” towards Moscow. After it moved 1,000 miles eastward, Vladimir Putin drew the line in 2007, saying NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

The concern is one that has haunted Russian leaders for centuries. The Poles invaded Russia in 1605, the Swedes in 1707, the French in 1812, and the Germans in 1914 and 1941. In World War II alone, the Soviets lost 24 million people — an incomprehensible figure, dwarfing the 418,000 American casualties.

Regardless of what one thinks of Russia’s system of government or Vladimir Putin, it is a fact that in the past 500 years, Russia has often found itself the target of Western aggression. Perhaps when Putin threatens nuclear war over Ukraine, it is worth taking seriously.

Another risk is to our own vital stocks of armaments. Ukraine is blowing through American missiles and projectiles as an unsustainable rate. Consider that, according to the Congressional Research Service, we’ve given the Ukrainians “10,000+” Javelins and “2,000+” Stingers. That “+” is the classified fig leaf over the exact number, but it is safe to assume we are running low on these arms for our own defense. Until 2022, the United States had not purchased a Stinger since 2003 and the missile line was closed entirely in 2020. Even under the rosiest of scenarios, it is unlikely we will be able to replenish the Stingers we have given to Ukraine until 2028.

Lastly, the huge expenditure of taxpayer dollars going to Ukraine has totaled enough to double the U.S. Navy’s fleet. Worse, it is borrowed. The $175 billion is money we do not have, and that sum does not include interest on the debt.

Given the risks and money on the line, Congress should demand the Biden administration comply with the law. The American people deserve a full accounting.

Morgan Murphy is a former DoD press secretary, national security adviser in the U.S. Senate, a veteran of Afghanistan.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Featured Image Credit: Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #MorganMurphy BidenUkraineStrategy USUkraineFunding

Up Next

The Propaganda Model Has Limits

Don't Miss

We Reap the Harvest of Lies

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 7 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

conflict

Obama Dropped Over 26K Bombs Without Congressional Approval

Published on June 27, 2025

Todayville

By Martin Armstrong

@miss_stacey_
Biden, Clinton, Obama & Harris on Iran #biden #clinton #obama #harris #trump #iran #nuclear

♬ original sound – Stacey

Iran has been the target for decades. Biden, Harris, and Clinton—all the Democrats have said that they would attack Iran if given the opportunity. It appears that Donald Trump is attempting to mitigate a potentially irresolvable situation. As he bluntly told reporters: We basically — we have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f‑‑‑ they’re doing.”

A portion of the nation believes Trump acted like a dictator by attacking Iran without Congressional approval. I explained how former President Barack Obama decimated the War Powers Resolution Act when he decided Libya was overdue for a regime change. The War Powers Act, or War Powers Resolution of 1973, grants the POTUS the ability to send American troops into battle if Congress receives a 48-hour notice. The stipulation here is that troops cannot remain in battle for over 60 days unless Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Congress could also remove US forces at any time by passing a resolution.

Libya is one of seven nations that Obama bombed without Congressional approval, yet no one remembers him as a wartime president, as the United States was not technically at war. Over 26,000 bombs were deployed across 7 nations under his command in 2016 alone. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Pakistan were attacked without a single vote. Donald Trump’s recent orders saw 36 bombs deployed in Iran.

The majority of those bombings happened in Syria, Libya, and Iraq under the premise of targeting extremist groups like ISIS. Drone strikes were carried out across Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan as the Obama Administration accused those nations of hosting al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Coincidentally, USAID was also providing funding to those groups.

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was initially implemented to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama broadened his interpretation of the AUMF and incorporated newly formed militant groups that were allegedly expanding across the entire Middle East. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism believes there were up to 1,100 civilian casualties in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Thousands of civilians died in Syria and Iraq but the death toll was never calculated. At least 100 innocent people died in the 2016 attacks in Afghanistan alone.

The government will always augment the law for their personal agenda. The War Powers Resolution was ignored and the AUMF was altered. Congress was, however, successful in preventing Obama from putting US troops on the ground and fighting a full-scale war. In 2013, Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria but was denied. Obama again attempted to deploy troops in 2015 but was denied. Congress has to redraft the AUMF to specifically prevent Obama from deploying troops in the Middle East. “The authorization… does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” Obama attempted to redraft the AUMF on his own by insisting he would prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations” or long-term deployment of troops. He was met with bipartisan disapproval as both sides believed he was attempting to drag the United States into another unnecessary war.

The United States should not be involved in any of these battles, but here we are. Those living in fear that Donald Trump is a dictator fail to recognize that past leadership had every intention of sending American men and women into battle unilaterally without a single vote cast.

conflict

The Oil Price Spike That Didn’t Happen

Published on June 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

What if they gave an oil price spike and nobody came? That is admittedly kind of a lame play on an old saying about parties, but it’s exactly what has happened over the two weeks since June 12, when Israel launched its initial assault on Iran.

At that day’s close of trading, the domestic U.S. WTI price sat at $68.04 per barrel. As of this writing on June 24, the price stands at $64.50. That’s not just the absence of a price spike, it is the opposite of one, a drop of 5% in just two weeks.

So, what happened? Why didn’t crude prices spike significantly? For such a seemingly complex trading market that is impacted daily by a broad variety of factors, the answer here is surprisingly simple, boiling down to just two key factors.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Neither Israel nor the United States made an effort to target Iran’s refining or export infrastructures.
Despite some tepid, sporadic saber rattling by Iranian officials, they mounted no real effort to block the flow of crude tankers through the region’s critical choke point, the Strait of Hormuz.

Hitting Iran’s infrastructure could have taken its substantial crude exports – which the International Energy Agency estimates to be 1.7 million barrels per day – off the global market, a big hit. Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global crude supplies flow every day, would have been a much bigger hit, one that would have set prices on an upward spiral.

But the oil kept flowing, muting the few comparatively small increases in prices which did come about.

Respected analyst David Ramsden-Wood, writing at his “HotTakeOfTheDay” Substack newsletter, summed it up quite well. “Oil is still structurally bearish. U.S. producers are in PR mode—talking up ‘Drill, baby, drill’ while actually slowing down. Capex is flat to declining. Rig counts are down. Shareholders want returns, not growth. So we’re left with this: Tension in the Middle East, no supply impact, and U.S. production that’s quietly rolling over. Oil shrugged.”

There was a time, as recently as 10 years ago, when crude prices would have no doubt rocketed skywards at the news of both the commencement of Israel’s initial June 12 assault on Iran’s military and political targets and of last Saturday’s U.S. bombing operation. In those days, we could have expected crude prices to go as high as $100 per barrel or even higher. Markets used to really react to the “tension in the Middle East” to which Ramsden-Wood refers, in large part, because they had no real way to parse through all the uncertainties such events might create.

Now it’s different. Things have changed. The rise of machine learning, AI and other technological and communications advancements has played a major role.

In the past, a lack of real-time information during any rise in Middle East tensions left traders in the dark for some period of time – often extended periods – about potential impacts on production in the world’s biggest oil producing region. But that is no longer the case. Traders can now gauge potential impacts almost immediately.

That was especially true throughout this most recent upset, due to President Donald Trump’s transparency about everything that was taking place. You were able to know exactly what the U.S. was planning to do or had done just by regularly pressing the “refresh” button at Trump’s Truth Social feed.

Tim Stewart, President of the D.C.-based U.S. Oil and Gas Association, has a term for this. “The Markets are becoming much better at building the ‘47 Variable’ into their short-term models,” he said in an email. “This is not a Republican Administration – it is a Disrupter Administration and disruption happens both ways, so the old playbooks just don’t apply anymore. Traders are taking into account a President who means what he says, and it is best to plan for it.”

Add to all that the reality that a high percentage of crude trading is now conducted via automated, AI-controlled programs, and few trades are any longer made in the dark.

Thus, the world saw a price spike which, despite being widely predicted by many smart people, didn’t happen, and the reasons why are pretty simple.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/PBS NewsHour)