Biden is Putin's best buddy.

Or is your argument that there is no way to prevent Putin from winning out in the end, so we should just buddy him as much as possible to get out of this mess?

Diplomacy is a fickle thing. There are degrees to "buddying" since we got caught with our pants down, the only practical choice we had was to find an alternative supplier to replace Russia BEFORE we cut Russia off.

Doing it now is 100 percent an empty symbolic gesture.

Now you're talking about improving what Biden actually did, not the idea you presented.

Doing it now, as a means of punishing Russia for its actions and ensuring that they can't continue to fund their war efforts and subsequent occupation long-term, is a different story. 

That it’s fine to buddy Putin so long as doing so is cost effective for the US?

your position was and hopefully still is that helping Putin is bad.

When does that become our problem?

That’s a nonsensical answer.

your position was and hopefully still is that helping Putin is bad.

I asked when we, as in the US, should act.

Not simply that it's cost effective, but that it's objectively cost prohibitive to get bogged down in yet another war we have no hope of winning. It's beyond the concept of the cure simply being worse than the virus since the virus has essentially already won here.

Again, there is only one thing a leader needs to focus on and that is his people first.   I take it you got the Moby Dick reference?

Why is it all of a sudden convenient to declare Biden's actions bad only now and not a year ago when he was making policies to enrich Russia and increase our dependence on him to maintain affordable oil? Seems to me that if the premise of "helping Putin" was bad on it's face, People would have been outraged a year ago.

The point of this thread was to force people to see that glaring oversight since most of them were caught up in the propaganda that Biden was objectively "not-Trump" and that "Trump was Putin's buddy"

 That's a major problem right now in America. That Americans can be so easily fooled by foreign propaganda as long as it's convenient for maintaining political power until it bites them in the ass.

 Putin's personal "Russia Today" for information about a Jen Psaki WH press conf. 

Do you believe Biden cares more about what is going on in Ukraine than the collective EU leadership?

Your response is that the US should never act, regardless of what the EU does...

 but it’s also entirely untenable as a course for US foreign policy right now.

ROFL. the delusion required to believe Russia fabricated that press conference.

I was right to avoid you since you seem to have cognitive issues.

 I said that you went to Putin as your primary source on a WH press conference and now you are bitching about people believing foreign propaganda when nobody is more guilty of that sin than you.

Then you don't understand what I am saying, and maybe that's my fault.

My point is that EU seems to care little about the Hatfield and McCoy relationship between the USA and Russia, so when Russia seeks to absorb a buffer nation like Ukraine, it's not going to respond with the same vigor as Biden will. And objectively if you look at the actions of the EU and discard the rhetoric, this seems plain and obvious. NATO doesn't share the same security interests of America. If they do, their actions sure do not support it.

I disagree. We can defend ourselves from provocative cyber attacks without getting into a cold war with Russia. Deterrence and providence is a better and wiser foreign policy than retribution and punishment. If Russia was an actual threat to the EU leadership, they certainly don't act like it, so I call bullshit that this is the case.

Deterring action requires a response.

Where would you set the line they could not cross?

It’s pretty clear what Biden should’ve/should do: ban Russian imports of oils and produce domestically. Not ban Russian imports and then go to Iran or Venezuela to get oil 

NATO

when more reliable sources offer first-hand accounts with the advantage of fact-checking? 

NATO

Alright, at least this is a clear stance on what the US should do. Given that producing more oil domestically would obviously come with delays in the process of ramping up production (usually in the timeline of at least several months), this isn't really a short term solution to the problem of limited resources. It indicates that he should have pushed for more drilling early in his administration, which I'll grant you would have been beneficial, but it's not a solution to rising gas prices now. I have my issues with trying to get oil from Iran or Venezuela as well, though at this point, addressing the short-term pain of limited oil supplies while keeping up the ban on Russian oil requires either getting it from another country or waiting out the delay. I see problems with both, though refusing to ban Russian oil would have incurred its own problems.