Why Trump Is Staying With Biden’s Ukraine Policy

28 September 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

On CBS’s Sunday, September 28th, “Face the Nation,” the Republican U.S. House member Mike Turner told CBS’s Margaret Brenner about the overwhelming support in Congress for the Lindsey Graham proposal to defeat Russia by passing into U.S. law “bone-crushing sanctions” that will force the compliance of other nations by imposing enormous sanctions also against any nation that won’t comply with America’s anti-Russia “bone crushing” sanctions. He said:

REP. TURNER: The momentum is here, we need to do this now. The President doesn’t need to give us a green light. He’s not a red light. The last time that- and we and we’re coming back, and we need to do so, we need to do so now. The last time we put on the floor the bill that would have stopped funding Ukraine, over 300 members voted for it. If we put the bill on the floor to stop the- to put sanctions on Russia, stop funding their economy, it would be similar. Over 300 members would vote for it. The only way to peace is to put sanctions on Russia, continue our support for Ukraine, which is what we’re doing, what the President is going to be doing, and bring this war to an end. Support Trump’s vision of peace. Put sanctions on Russia, stop funding their- their war economy. Now, what I saw in Ukraine, which is what’s really incredible, is that they are winning modern warfare. What they’re doing with their anti-drone technology, I mean, they are really the tech bros of the future. They are implementing on the front line, anti-drone air defense technology that is winning this war with our help and assistance, which they’re going to continue to need for the long-range systems that Russia is bringing in and that are attacking Kyiv with. But what their anti-drone technology that no one else has, that they are implementing. They are winning this war. We need to be on the side of that war of the future that they’re winning and support Ukraine.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And I’ve heard military officials explain this to me that this is like a really interesting test case to learn the lessons that Ukraine is illustrating for the world. However, in the immediate term, will the President lift restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to use long-range weapons to actually attack Russia?

REP. TURNER: Well, and he really needs to do so, because what’s happening with that pressure that’s on the front line –

MARGARET BRENNAN: But he has the old Biden policy.

REP. TURNER: Right, well, he does, and that’s what he needs to release, because with the pressure on the front line and the fact that Ukraine has developed anti-drone technology, where they’re taking down Russian drones, they’re using their own drones to attack Russia, but Russia has long-range weapons that they’re attacking that front line. Ukraine needs to have the ability to use long-range weapons to push Russia back. And when they’re able to do that, they will get their territory back. If they are able to do that, they will win this war. And if we put sanctions on Russia, impacting their ability to produce their war machine and production, they will be able to win this modern warfare, and will be on the right side of what- this is not old-time war. This is modern war, and we’re being on the right side of Ukraine.

When Margaret Brennan said “But he has the old Biden policy,” she was correct, and my purpose here will be to explain what Biden’s policy was, and why Trump is sticking with it:

Back on 13 September 2024, I had headlined “Biden might decide today whether to initiate WW3 against Russia.” and reported:

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the man who as the UK’s Chief Prosecutor made the decisions to prosecute and imprison and keep in prison Julian Assange, is now on September 13th visiting the White House in order to persuade U.S. President Joe Biden to enable Ukraine to use NATO missiles to strike deep inside Russia, including The Kremlin, which is less than 317 miles from Ukraine’s border.

The next day, I headlined “‘Biden might decide today whether to initiate WW3 against Russia.’: UPDATE #4”, and reported that Starmer was returning to London disapointed that Biden said only tha he would think about it.

Then on October 10th I headlined “Biden’s Plan Calls for WW3 To Start After Election Day”, and reported that on October 10th, Biden had suddenly cancelled the crucial meeting that he himself had called for and was to chair in Germany for all 50 countries that support Ukraine to carry out a full-fledged war against Russia in accord with a secret plan that Volodmyr Zelensky would present there. He had cancelled it because he had, on October 10th, finally gotten Zelensky to reveal privately to Starmer and Macron his plan, and Biden was shocked then to see that it would entail escalation of the war in Ukraine to become a nuclear war, WW3. Biden knew that if he were to go this route, then Kamala Harris would certainly lose the November election to Trump, and so Biden decided that he would better leave the decision to his successor, and not doom her chance of winning the Presidency.

Finally, on November 18th, I headlined “Caitlin Johnstone: Biden Ramps Up Nuclear Brinkmanship On His Way Out The Door” and reported that

(NOTE: I was going to do an article on this today, especially because this article follows up — though without mentioning — my October 10th “Biden’s plan calls for WW3 to start after Election Day.”, which opened “U.S. President Joe Biden refuses to answer until after November 5th the question of whether the U.S. will officially be at war against Russia,” which was a follow-on to my September 13th “Biden might decide today whether to initiate WW3 against Russia.” So, Caitlin’s fine article today is a follow-on to those events. She points out that the missiles which Biden is now allowing Ukraine to use to bomb Russia don’t range as far as the 300 miles range that would be able to bomb The Kremlin and endanger Russia’s central command. Therefore, Biden isn’t necessaily sparking WW3 by this policy-change. But what he now is allowing would endanger Russia’s giant nuclear power plant in Kursk, and so it could end up causing Russia to unleash nuclear war against the United States and Ukraine.)

Biden Ramps Up Nuclear Brinkmanship On His Way Out The Door

18 November 2024, by Caitlin Johnstone

…

Her superb article is well worth reading in order to understand the decision that Trump now has to make — whether or not to allow Ukraine to actually have the capacity to annihilate The Kremlin, which is only around 300 miles (500 kilometers) away from Ukraine. This is more than a decision about hardware; it is a decision about whether — in order for the U.S. empire to continue growing — to escalate Ukraine’s war into WW3. A majority of congressmen in both houses and both Parties believe that he should. There was nothing unusual about Representative Mike Turner’s statement on “Face the Nation” today. America is allegedly a democracy, just as Germany was when Hitler became its leader in 1933. Today’s Russians know that Hitler’s Germany and its allies killed over 13 million of them under Hitler, and think that today’s America and its allies might be even more ambitious. They have good reason to believe that.

Here is my history of the Ukraine war. It’s fully documented with links to its sources, and it is virtually the opposite of what has been published in The West (such as that Putin instead of Obama started Ukraine’s war, and that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 started the war and was unprovoked, and was aggression, and was illegal under international law). So, for people in the U.S. empire, it is full of documented facts that are a shocking contrast to the widely published lies.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.