Analyst: Anti-Russia ‘Bluster’ Designed to Make Biden Appear Strong in Election

Filmmaker Regis Tremblay insisted Russia would not be “intimidated” by the US Congress’ passage of $61 billion in aid for Ukraine, noting most of the money would remain in the United States.

Congress’ passage of billions of dollars in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan over the weekend has generated significant controversy in the United States.

Recent polling suggests the American public is against the idea. The majority of Democratic Party legislators, now fully identified with the interests of the military industrial complex and national security state, mostly voted in favor of the funding, while the Republican Party remains sharply divided over the issue. Some conservative lawmakers have proposed removing House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) from his post over his support of the massive spending.

The response to the development within Russia has been far more muted according to American filmmaker Regis Tremblay, who currently resides in Crimea. Tremblay joined Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program Wednesday to discuss the issue with hosts Wilmer Leon and Garland Nixon.

“I don't think it's very much on the minds of ordinary Russian people,” said the US-born documentarian. “Those that are paying attention know that most of that $61 billion is never going to reach Ukraine. They know that that is going to go to the United States military industrial complex to replenish America's arsenals. Now how much is going to get to Ukraine? Well, I think people could be sure that some of that money is going to go into the pockets of Zelensky and his cronies.”

“What little arrives is not going to make any difference on the battleground,” he insisted. “What people are thinking who are paying attention to what's going on in the United States, they know that Biden has got to appear strong as a wartime president who is doing everything he can to win this war against Russia… It is all bluster, it is all designed to make sure that Joseph Biden remains a viable candidate in the coming election.”

Americans’ support for US involvement in the Ukraine proxy war has followed the familiar pattern of most US-backed military conflicts. The launching of Russia’s special military operation was greeted with strong support for Ukraine among the American public, with US aid quickly flowing from Congress.

But the issue has become sharply polarizing in the two years since, with many conservative Republicans rejecting further funding for Ukraine. The American public has largely come to see the country’s decades-long involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as a costly mistake, with anti-war rhetoric representing a theme of former President Donald Trump’s winning campaign in 2016. Sizable portions of supporters of both major US political parties view America’s neoconservative foreign policy establishment with skepticism and distrust.

“This war is basically over,” said Tremblay. “There's no amount of money and weapons that could get poured into Ukraine today that would help Ukraine win. The only thing that could create a real problem for the entire world is if, as Macron and others have said, they want to send their own troops into Ukraine.”

Polling has shown most of the French public are opposed to the idea.

“The other part of this is that this money is really insignificant when it comes to what Ukraine needs,” Tremblay added. “Patriot missile systems cost $1 billion. I don't know who in the United States wants to send any more of those Patriots to Ukraine that are going to be destroyed. I think that the United States is sending this money just to save face, period. It is not going to affect anything that's going on on the front lines.”

A recent statement by Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev criticized the aid bill, suggesting that the United States is unwilling to give up its long-held status of global hegemon. “Unpredictability and the conflict potential in international relations have significantly stepped up,” said the official at the opening of the 12th International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues.

“We look at statesmanship in the diplomacy from China, whether it be from President Xi or whether it be from Wang Yi,” said Leon. “Statesmanship versus brinksmanship is the way that I'll categorize it. Tony Blinken on his way to China to, again, try to lecture the Chinese instead of trying to sit down and do what they've basically been asking, which is ‘work with us, not against us.’”

“You have all of those – and they are the majority now – who understand and clearly articulate that the unipolar world is over,” said Tremblay. “We are already in the multipolar world. The BRICS movement, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the One Belt, One Road are all groups, organizations that are emphasizing that the future will be a multipolar world and therein lies the crux of the problem.”

“This situation has become more dangerous and unpredictable due to the unwillingness of the United States to accept its rightful place in the world order as one among equals.”

Reports emerged recently that the Biden administration had pleaded with China to use its influence to prevent Iran from retaliating against Israel, suggesting a recognition of the power the country now holds as a neutral arbiter of global disputes. China surprised observers in 2023 by helping to broker a normalization of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a significant diplomatic development in the region.