Gli USA portano la guerra ovunque (1 Viewer)
- Creatore Discussione tontolina
- Data di Inizio
tontolina
Forumer storico
Il segnale agli Usa dietro il fallito golpe in Bolivia
Pubblicazione: 28.06.2024 - Mauro BottarelliDopo l'Africa, Cina e Russia puntano all'America Latina per garantirsi quelle materie prime strategiche anche per gli Stati Uniti
Era il 19 aprile scorso quando il Presidente boliviano, Luis Arce, ha denunciato come alcune potenze e un Paese vicino cercano di controllare le risorse naturali della Bolivia, come il litio, escludendola dai processi di vie di comunicazione strategiche.
Fast forward all’oggi, ecco che tornano i golpe a telecomando in America Latina.
Qualcuno a Langley deve aver ripreso in mano il playbook degli anni Settanta e Ottanta. Oppure no? Quando pronunciò quelle parole, infatti, non a caso Arce lo fece di fronte ai cadetti dell’Accademia militare a La Paz: La Bolivia è diventata un punto di interesse per le potenze mondiali. Così come per un Paese vicino che cerca di controllare le nostre risorse strategiche, bloccando le nostre esportazioni e non rispettando fra l’altro il Trattato del 1904 fra Cile e Bolivia che pose fine alla guerra.
Il capo dello Stato invitò quindi i cadetti a formarsi alla difesa della sovranità e dell’integrità territoriale, ricordando come la Bolivia disponga di risorse naturali strategiche come litio, terre rare e acqua dolce, essenziali per lo sviluppo tecnologico ed economico del mondo. Infine, l’accusa più netta e diretta: Si intende subordinarci a progetti geopolitici come il “Piano Capricorno”, escludendoci dalla costruzione di vie di comunicazione strategiche e cercando di balcanizzarci o mostrarci come uno Stato fallito.
Cosa sia il Piano Capricorno è presto detto:
si tratta di un corridoio bio-oceanico che attraversa Brasile, Paraguay, Cile e Argentina e comprende porti sia nell’Atlantico che nel Pacifico. La Bolivia, inizialmente parte del progetto, fu in un secondo tempo esclusa. Peccato che il medesimo Paese possa contare su riserve di litio per 21 milioni di tonnellate nelle saline di Uyuni, Coipasa e Pastos Grandes.
Ma soprattutto, cosa è accaduto non più tardi del 7 giugno scorso? Il medesimo Luis Arce era in visita in Russia, dove ha incontrato il direttore generale dell’azienda statale Rosatom, Alexey Likhachev, con cui ha discusso di progetti nel nucleare e dello sviluppo industriale del litio boliviano. A riferirlo lo stesso Arce con un post su X: Abbiamo fatto progressi in progetti importanti di cooperazione bilaterale nell’ambito nucleare e nello sviluppo industriale del nostro litio per generare energia pulita, si leggeva nel testo.
Ma non basta. Arce si trovava in Russia in occasione del Forum economico internazionale di San Pietroburgo (Spief), a margine del quale, il Presidente boliviano ha incontrato l’omologo russo, Vladimir Putin, con cui ha discusso di potenziare le relazioni commerciali bilaterali. Ma ancora non basta. Perché per capire chi possa aver armato la mano del generale Zuniga, una sorta di Ugo Tognazzi ne Vogliamo i colonnelli! e reso volutamente assordante il tintinnar di sciabole nel Paese sudamericano, ecco che occorre andare indietro di un anno. Esattamente il 30 giugno del 2023, quando Cina e Russia resero nota la loro intenzione di investire 1,4 miliardi di dollari in progetti legati al litio in Bolivia, metallo cruciale per le batterie dei veicoli elettrici.
La cinese Citic Guoan e la russa Uranium One Group, entrambe con una forte partecipazione statale, collaboreranno con Yacimientos de Litio Bolivianos (YLB) per installare due impianti di carbonato di litio, dichiarò il Presidente, Luis Arce, nel corso di un evento pubblico. Alla firma dell’accordo erano presenti rappresentanti boliviani, cinesi e russi delle tre società. A gennaio 2023, il governo di Arce ha firmato un altro accordo con il consorzio cinese Catl Brunp & Cmoc (CBC) per l’installazione di due impianti di batterie al litio. A sua volta, CBC ha promesso un investimento di almeno 1 miliardo di dollari. Stando a fonti del Governo boliviano, Uranium One Group investirà 578 milioni di dollari in un impianto nelle saline di Pastos Grandes e la cinese Citic Guoan 857 milioni di dollari in un secondo impianto a nord delle saline di Uyuni, entrambi nel dipartimento andino sud-occidentale di Potosì. Il ministero degli Idrocarburi e dell’Energia ha affermato in un comunicato che ciascuno dei complessi avrà la capacità di produrre fino a 25.000 tonnellate all’anno. E la costruzione degli impianti è partita a tempo di record già lo scorso autunno.
Il ministero degli Idrocarburi ha riferito nel gennaio 2023 che entro l’anno prossimo prevede di esportare 5 miliardi di dollari di litio, il che supererebbe i suoi proventi derivanti dal gas naturale, a sua volta capace di generare nel 2022 ricavi per 3,4 miliardi di dollari. E, soprattutto, attualmente la principale fonte di introito del Paese. Ora, al netto del fatto che il golpe sia stato organizzato seguendo le istruzioni del Lego e che siano stati gli stessi militari ad arrestare i due graduati a capo del colpo di Stato, sorge una domanda. Che dite, forse per una volta il golpe non è stato ordito da chi vuole destabilizzare, ma da chi vuole consolidare il nuovo equilibrio, di fatto proclamando tana alla strategia consolidata degli Usa in America Latina di fronte al mondo intero?
In tal caso, si chiamerebbe false flag. E invierebbe un segnale molto chiaro agli Stati Uniti, mai come oggi in mano a un Deep State non esattamente lucidissimo: dopo l’Africa, Cina e Russia puntano al loro giardino di casa. Per garantirsi quelle materie prime strategiche da cui dipende il destino reale e macro di quella bolla tech/AI che per ora gli Usa stanno sfruttando unicamente a livello finanziario. E per quanto né Mosca, né Pechino siano benefattori, probabilmente nel mondo meno fortunato si preferisce un colonizzatore che realizza infrastrutture e garantisce sviluppo e lavoro, piuttosto che un sobillatore di latifondisti e gruppi paramilitari. Non a caso, in Kenya chi protesta contro l’aumento delle tasse e lo fa in modo talmente determinato da obbligare il Presidente a non controfirmare la legge, lo fa sventolando la bandiera russa. Le foto lo testimoniano.
Un altro Niger? Attenzione, se così fosse, giova ricordare come non più tardi del mese scorso Joe Biden abbia definito proprio il Kenya il più fidato alleato Usa nell’area. Tutt’intorno, un’Europa che gioca coi fantasmi del fascismo. Meritiamo la colonizzazione, tocca prenderne atto.
tontolina
Forumer storico
sanziona di qua sanziona di là
bombarda questo, bombarda quello con la scusa di esportare la democrazia
e succede che
L’Arabia Saudita non rinnoverà l’accordo raggiunto in segreto con gli Stati Uniti nel 1974 di reinvestire le entrate in petrodollari nei titoli del Tesoro U$T, finanziando così il debito americano, e dando alla valuta USA un sostituto del “tallone aureo”, dove il petrolio, bene reale, può (poteva) essere pagato solo in dollari. Ma ora lo schema del riciclaggio di petrodollari in Treasury Bonds pare essere giunto al capolinea. Lo scorso anno in giugno, le riserve di U$T dell’Arabia Saudita erano scese al livello più basso da oltre 6 anni.
A distanza di 50 anni dall’accordo segreto imposto da Washington al Regno Saudita, poi divulgato nel 2016, non solo il debito degli Stati Uniti è esploso toccando vette insostenibili, ma l’imposizione di sanzioni e la rapina delle riserve valutarie della Russia hanno provocato un effetto boomerang sul dollaro.
Con alta probabilità, Riyadh aderirà agli scambi internazionali per il suo petrolio con la nuova valuta dei BRICS, che in tal senso avrebbe anche la funzione di valuta di riserva alternativa al dollaro e dei Bonds U$T denominati in dollari.
Il Regno Saudita non comprapiù titoli del debito USA
Mainstream: "USA e Italia, sempre assieme per un futuro radioso" - Salvo Ardizzone Marco Carnelos
tontolina
Forumer storico
Anche in MALI-AFRICA
L'Ucraina ha indirettamente ammesso di cooperare con i terroristi di Al-Qaeda in Mali
Il portavoce della direzione principale dell'intelligence del Ministero della Difesa ucraino (GUR) Andrey Yusov, intervenendo in uno dei programmi televisivi del canale "1 + 1" ha confermato la cooperazione con i ribelli del «coordinamento dei movimenti del Azawad», ossia con i separatisti che combattono contro le truppe governative nel nord del Mali.
"I ribelli hanno ricevuto tutte le informazioni necessarie, e non solo le informazioni, che hanno permesso un'operazione militare di successo”, ha affermato l’ufficiale ucraino, aggiungendo che sono previste nuove operazioni contro i militari russi e le forze armate del Mali.
Yusov si riferisce agli scontri armati dello scorso 27 luglio dove un contingente dell'esercito del Mali e di specialisti militari russi (combattenti della Wagner), muovendosi verso la città di Tinsauaten, si è imbattuto in un’imboscata tesa dai guerriglieri dell’Azawad e da gruppi terroristici del Sahel riconducibili ad Al Qaeda.
L'Ucraina ha indirettamente ammesso di cooperare con i terroristi di Al-Qaeda in Mali
Il portavoce della direzione principale dell'intelligence del Ministero della Difesa ucraino (GUR) Andrey Yusov, intervenendo in uno dei programmi televisivi del canale "1 + 1" ha confermato la cooperazione con i ribelli del «coordinamento dei movimenti del Azawad», ossia con i separatisti che combattono contro le truppe governative nel nord del Mali.
"I ribelli hanno ricevuto tutte le informazioni necessarie, e non solo le informazioni, che hanno permesso un'operazione militare di successo”, ha affermato l’ufficiale ucraino, aggiungendo che sono previste nuove operazioni contro i militari russi e le forze armate del Mali.
Yusov si riferisce agli scontri armati dello scorso 27 luglio dove un contingente dell'esercito del Mali e di specialisti militari russi (combattenti della Wagner), muovendosi verso la città di Tinsauaten, si è imbattuto in un’imboscata tesa dai guerriglieri dell’Azawad e da gruppi terroristici del Sahel riconducibili ad Al Qaeda.
Ultima modifica:
Wrangel
Armata bianca, Barone nero
Portano guerre ovvero disordini e sollevazioni , per es. ancora una volta nel martoriato ( dalle loro sanzioni ) Venezuela 
Addirittura abbiamo l'assurdità che il Congresso USA ancora una volta s'arroga il diritto di sostituirsi al popolo venezuelano ed ha riconosciuto Gonzales Urrutia come legittimo nuovo Presidente del Venezuela !! Sic !!
Questo che riporto qui di seguito è il sarcastico ma centratissimo commento della Maria Zakharova sulla questione :
"E Guaido?" Maria Zakharova ha reagito alla dichiarazione degli Stati Uniti sulla vittoria dell'oppositore alle elezioni in Venezuela Il Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti non ha riconosciuto i risultati delle elezioni presidenziali in Venezuela, secondo le quali ha vinto l'attuale capo di Stato Nicolas Maduro, e ha annunciato la vittoria del candidato dell'opposizione Edmundo González Urrutia. La rappresentante ufficiale del ministero degli Esteri russo, Maria Zakharova, in una conversazione con RTVI, ha ricordato che nelle precedenti elezioni venezuelane, Washington ha sostenuto allo stesso modo l'oppositore Juan Guaido. "Come?! E Guaidó? Dal punto di vista degli Stati Uniti, non è più presidente? Non abbiamo avuto il tempo di rintracciare quando si è "dimesso"", ha detto Zakharova
Addirittura abbiamo l'assurdità che il Congresso USA ancora una volta s'arroga il diritto di sostituirsi al popolo venezuelano ed ha riconosciuto Gonzales Urrutia come legittimo nuovo Presidente del Venezuela !! Sic !!
Questo che riporto qui di seguito è il sarcastico ma centratissimo commento della Maria Zakharova sulla questione :
"E Guaido?" Maria Zakharova ha reagito alla dichiarazione degli Stati Uniti sulla vittoria dell'oppositore alle elezioni in Venezuela Il Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti non ha riconosciuto i risultati delle elezioni presidenziali in Venezuela, secondo le quali ha vinto l'attuale capo di Stato Nicolas Maduro, e ha annunciato la vittoria del candidato dell'opposizione Edmundo González Urrutia. La rappresentante ufficiale del ministero degli Esteri russo, Maria Zakharova, in una conversazione con RTVI, ha ricordato che nelle precedenti elezioni venezuelane, Washington ha sostenuto allo stesso modo l'oppositore Juan Guaido. "Come?! E Guaidó? Dal punto di vista degli Stati Uniti, non è più presidente? Non abbiamo avuto il tempo di rintracciare quando si è "dimesso"", ha detto Zakharova
captain sparrow
Forumer storico
NYC times
Biden Promised Peace, but Will Leave His Successor a Nation Entangled in War
The president has spent much of his tenure mobilizing military might against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supporting Israel.
9 Agosto 2024 da Michael Crowley
Speaking from the Oval Office last month as he explained his decision not to seek re-election, President Biden boasted about his accomplishments. One of them, he suggested, was presiding over an era of peace.
“I’m the first president in this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world,” Mr. Biden declared to the nation.
But while America is no longer waging a large-scale ground war like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, for much of his tenure Mr. Biden has seemed like a wartime leader.
Since pulling the last American troops out of Afghanistan three years ago, Mr. Biden has spent much of his presidency mobilizing public opinion and military might against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and playing a deeply engaged role in supporting Israel in its war in Gaza, and against Iran and the groups it backs.
“War will be a key part of Biden’s legacy,” said Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “What’s hard to wrap one’s head around is that, although the United States is not directly involved in the wars in Ukraine or Gaza, the risks of large-scale conflict have become higher over the course of Biden’s presidency.”
The implications for Mr. Biden’s successor — either former President Donald J. Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris — could be huge.
Mr. Biden’s presidency has some ominous echoes of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s later years in office, Mr. Wertheim noticed. In 1940 and 1941, the outbreak of World War II dominated national politics even though Roosevelt initially kept America out of the conflict. But Roosevelt gradually escalated U.S. involvement by serving as “the arsenal of democracy” — a phrase Mr. Biden invoked in an October speech making the case for arming Ukraine and Israel.
By 1943, the United States was at war on three continents.
Mr. Biden has not actually kept America out of combat entirely since leaving Afghanistan. U.S. forces have repeatedly bombed Houthi militants in Yemen since Oct. 7, in response to Houthi attacks on global shipping, and have struck Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. One U.S. strike was retaliation for a drone attack that killed three American troops at a base in Jordan. This week, a rocket attack on a U.S. air base in Iraq by Iranian-backed fighters wounded several American soldiers.
Mr. Biden has even ordered American troops to act on Israel’s behalf. In April, U.S. planes downed many of the hundreds of missiles and drones launched by Iran in a major attack on Israel. Anticipating a similar attack this month, in response to Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran, Mr. Biden has again positioned warships and fighter jets to defend against another potential Iranian attack on Israel.
To his critics, Mr. Biden is conveniently airbrushing his record. “What is the ongoing effort to protect shipping against Houthi attack, if not a combat operation?” said Peter Feaver, a National Security Council official during the George W. Bush presidency.
People who hear Mr. Biden speak about ending war — he also said, inaccurately, during his June debate with Mr. Trump that he was not presiding over “any troops dying anywhere in the world” — are right to feel as though something does not add up, Mr. Feaver added.
“You might say, ‘Wait a second — this does not feel like the U.S. is out of war,’” he said. “That’s because this is the most dangerous geostrategic moment since the early 1980s.”
Sensing opportunity, Mr. Trump has accused Mr. Biden — and Ms. Harris — of endangering America’s security.
In contrast to both, Mr. Trump casts himself as a peacemaker who can swiftly end the war in Ukraine and bring calm to the Middle East, though analysts say that is highly unlikely.
“You are closer to a third world war right now than at any time since the Second World War,” Mr. Trump told reporters in late July. “You’ve never been so close, because we have incompetent people running our country.”
“If we win, it’ll be very simple,” he added. “It’s all going to work out and very quickly. If we don’t, you’re going to end up with major wars in the Middle East, and maybe a third world war.”
The wartime mood in Washington is a far cry from Mr. Biden’s vision as a candidate in 2020, when he pledged to move beyond the post-9/11 “forever wars” that sapped America’s strength and, he said, distracted Washington from the rise of China.
Mr. Biden spoke with pride when he withdrew the last U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021. “We’ve been a nation too long at war,” he said at the time. “If you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace.”
But any sense of peace did not last long.
Six months after the last U.S. soldier flew out of Kabul, Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. Warning that the international order was at stake, Mr. Biden poured money and weapons into Ukraine. “America stands up to bullies,” he said.
Mr. Biden firmly ruled out sending troops to fight Russia, but he deployed thousands of soldiers to Eastern Europe. A home front of sorts emerged, as Americans showed solidarity with Ukraine.
“Twice in my lifetime Americans have hoisted flags outside their homes,” Mr. Wertheim said. “The American flag after 9/11 — and the Ukrainian flag after February 2022.”
While cable television carried endless footage of tank battles and demolished Ukrainian apartment blocks, pundits argued about whether to provide Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles. America’s arms industry shifted into a higher gear to meet Kyiv’s enormous need for weapons.
The White House itself even organized for war. When Mr. Biden needed a new press secretary in 2022, he made the unusual choice of selecting one to handle domestic matters and another one, a longtime Pentagon official, to field the news media’s detailed military questions.
Kremlin officials said they considered themselves in “an indirect war” with the United States and suggested that the conflict could spiral into a nuclear war. In mid-2022, Mr. Biden warned that America “faced the prospect of Armageddon” for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Then came the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which plunged the White House into a near-constant state of crisis.
As Mr. Biden declined to cut off U.S. arms shipments to Israel amid soaring civilian casualties in Gaza, the biggest domestic antiwar protests since the Iraq war erupted. In scenes reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, students stormed college campus buildings, while activists camped outside the home of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.
Many protesters spoke as though Mr. Biden was managing the war in Gaza. “Genocide Joe! How many kids have you killed today?” one heckler shouted during the president’s appearance in Virginia in January.
While Mr. Biden clearly did not welcome the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza, he has sometimes spoken of them in Churchillian terms. In an Oval Office address in October, he called for a large aid package to Ukraine and Israel, saying that America stood at “an inflection point in history — one of those moments where the decisions we make today are going to determine the future for decades to come.”
Mr. Biden has even highlighted his personal derring-do under potential fire. In his October speech, he noted that he had returned that morning from a trip to Israel, adding that he was the first American president to travel there “during a war.”
Mr. Biden also offered a dramatic account of his visit to Ukraine earlier that year, including a 10-hour ride to Kyiv on a train with blacked-out windows. He boasted that he was the first American president “to enter a war zone not controlled by the United States military since President Lincoln.”
The Biden campaign would even produce an advertisement based on that trip. “In the middle of a war zone, Joe Biden showed the world what America is made of,” its narrator said.
It was clear that Mr. Biden’s campaign viewed his leadership during something resembling wartime as a political strength. “I’m running the world,” he told the ABC News host George Stephanopoulos in July, as he fought to remain the Democratic presidential nominee. He noted that he had just been on the phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and that he was “taking on” the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Biden’s calculus may be shifting to his legacy, and his ability to resolve conflict. He is now pressing Mr. Netanyahu to conclude a cease-fire agreement with Hamas to end the war in Gaza. He hopes that can unlock his larger plan for a formalized alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would be seen as a historic breakthrough.
A late burst of peacemaking could be invaluable for Mr. Biden’s place in the history books.
But Mr. Wertheim said, “There does seem to be a general sense that the world is out of control, there’s chaos and that the American president isn’t supposed to let that happen,” however unfair the expectation may be.
Michael Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the secretary of state. More about Michael Crowley
A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 13 of the New York edition with the headline: Biden’s Era of Peace Leaves Ominous Echoes of Past Wars.
Biden Promised Peace, but Will Leave His Successor a Nation Entangled in War
The president has spent much of his tenure mobilizing military might against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supporting Israel.
9 Agosto 2024 da Michael Crowley
Speaking from the Oval Office last month as he explained his decision not to seek re-election, President Biden boasted about his accomplishments. One of them, he suggested, was presiding over an era of peace.
“I’m the first president in this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world,” Mr. Biden declared to the nation.
But while America is no longer waging a large-scale ground war like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, for much of his tenure Mr. Biden has seemed like a wartime leader.
Since pulling the last American troops out of Afghanistan three years ago, Mr. Biden has spent much of his presidency mobilizing public opinion and military might against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and playing a deeply engaged role in supporting Israel in its war in Gaza, and against Iran and the groups it backs.
“War will be a key part of Biden’s legacy,” said Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “What’s hard to wrap one’s head around is that, although the United States is not directly involved in the wars in Ukraine or Gaza, the risks of large-scale conflict have become higher over the course of Biden’s presidency.”
The implications for Mr. Biden’s successor — either former President Donald J. Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris — could be huge.
Mr. Biden’s presidency has some ominous echoes of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s later years in office, Mr. Wertheim noticed. In 1940 and 1941, the outbreak of World War II dominated national politics even though Roosevelt initially kept America out of the conflict. But Roosevelt gradually escalated U.S. involvement by serving as “the arsenal of democracy” — a phrase Mr. Biden invoked in an October speech making the case for arming Ukraine and Israel.
By 1943, the United States was at war on three continents.
Mr. Biden has not actually kept America out of combat entirely since leaving Afghanistan. U.S. forces have repeatedly bombed Houthi militants in Yemen since Oct. 7, in response to Houthi attacks on global shipping, and have struck Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. One U.S. strike was retaliation for a drone attack that killed three American troops at a base in Jordan. This week, a rocket attack on a U.S. air base in Iraq by Iranian-backed fighters wounded several American soldiers.
Mr. Biden has even ordered American troops to act on Israel’s behalf. In April, U.S. planes downed many of the hundreds of missiles and drones launched by Iran in a major attack on Israel. Anticipating a similar attack this month, in response to Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran, Mr. Biden has again positioned warships and fighter jets to defend against another potential Iranian attack on Israel.
To his critics, Mr. Biden is conveniently airbrushing his record. “What is the ongoing effort to protect shipping against Houthi attack, if not a combat operation?” said Peter Feaver, a National Security Council official during the George W. Bush presidency.
People who hear Mr. Biden speak about ending war — he also said, inaccurately, during his June debate with Mr. Trump that he was not presiding over “any troops dying anywhere in the world” — are right to feel as though something does not add up, Mr. Feaver added.
“You might say, ‘Wait a second — this does not feel like the U.S. is out of war,’” he said. “That’s because this is the most dangerous geostrategic moment since the early 1980s.”
Sensing opportunity, Mr. Trump has accused Mr. Biden — and Ms. Harris — of endangering America’s security.
In contrast to both, Mr. Trump casts himself as a peacemaker who can swiftly end the war in Ukraine and bring calm to the Middle East, though analysts say that is highly unlikely.
“You are closer to a third world war right now than at any time since the Second World War,” Mr. Trump told reporters in late July. “You’ve never been so close, because we have incompetent people running our country.”
“If we win, it’ll be very simple,” he added. “It’s all going to work out and very quickly. If we don’t, you’re going to end up with major wars in the Middle East, and maybe a third world war.”
The wartime mood in Washington is a far cry from Mr. Biden’s vision as a candidate in 2020, when he pledged to move beyond the post-9/11 “forever wars” that sapped America’s strength and, he said, distracted Washington from the rise of China.
Mr. Biden spoke with pride when he withdrew the last U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021. “We’ve been a nation too long at war,” he said at the time. “If you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace.”
But any sense of peace did not last long.
Six months after the last U.S. soldier flew out of Kabul, Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. Warning that the international order was at stake, Mr. Biden poured money and weapons into Ukraine. “America stands up to bullies,” he said.
Mr. Biden firmly ruled out sending troops to fight Russia, but he deployed thousands of soldiers to Eastern Europe. A home front of sorts emerged, as Americans showed solidarity with Ukraine.
“Twice in my lifetime Americans have hoisted flags outside their homes,” Mr. Wertheim said. “The American flag after 9/11 — and the Ukrainian flag after February 2022.”
While cable television carried endless footage of tank battles and demolished Ukrainian apartment blocks, pundits argued about whether to provide Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles. America’s arms industry shifted into a higher gear to meet Kyiv’s enormous need for weapons.
The White House itself even organized for war. When Mr. Biden needed a new press secretary in 2022, he made the unusual choice of selecting one to handle domestic matters and another one, a longtime Pentagon official, to field the news media’s detailed military questions.
Kremlin officials said they considered themselves in “an indirect war” with the United States and suggested that the conflict could spiral into a nuclear war. In mid-2022, Mr. Biden warned that America “faced the prospect of Armageddon” for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Then came the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which plunged the White House into a near-constant state of crisis.
As Mr. Biden declined to cut off U.S. arms shipments to Israel amid soaring civilian casualties in Gaza, the biggest domestic antiwar protests since the Iraq war erupted. In scenes reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, students stormed college campus buildings, while activists camped outside the home of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.
Many protesters spoke as though Mr. Biden was managing the war in Gaza. “Genocide Joe! How many kids have you killed today?” one heckler shouted during the president’s appearance in Virginia in January.
While Mr. Biden clearly did not welcome the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza, he has sometimes spoken of them in Churchillian terms. In an Oval Office address in October, he called for a large aid package to Ukraine and Israel, saying that America stood at “an inflection point in history — one of those moments where the decisions we make today are going to determine the future for decades to come.”
Mr. Biden has even highlighted his personal derring-do under potential fire. In his October speech, he noted that he had returned that morning from a trip to Israel, adding that he was the first American president to travel there “during a war.”
Mr. Biden also offered a dramatic account of his visit to Ukraine earlier that year, including a 10-hour ride to Kyiv on a train with blacked-out windows. He boasted that he was the first American president “to enter a war zone not controlled by the United States military since President Lincoln.”
The Biden campaign would even produce an advertisement based on that trip. “In the middle of a war zone, Joe Biden showed the world what America is made of,” its narrator said.
It was clear that Mr. Biden’s campaign viewed his leadership during something resembling wartime as a political strength. “I’m running the world,” he told the ABC News host George Stephanopoulos in July, as he fought to remain the Democratic presidential nominee. He noted that he had just been on the phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and that he was “taking on” the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Biden’s calculus may be shifting to his legacy, and his ability to resolve conflict. He is now pressing Mr. Netanyahu to conclude a cease-fire agreement with Hamas to end the war in Gaza. He hopes that can unlock his larger plan for a formalized alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would be seen as a historic breakthrough.
A late burst of peacemaking could be invaluable for Mr. Biden’s place in the history books.
But Mr. Wertheim said, “There does seem to be a general sense that the world is out of control, there’s chaos and that the American president isn’t supposed to let that happen,” however unfair the expectation may be.
Michael Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the secretary of state. More about Michael Crowley
A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 13 of the New York edition with the headline: Biden’s Era of Peace Leaves Ominous Echoes of Past Wars.