Throughout his extraordinarily long political career, Joe Biden has had a well-deserved reputation for making verbal gaffes.

The late US diplomat saw that those yearning for regime change in Russia rarely considered what might come next

Russian president Vladimir Putin’s late-night televised speech from the Kremlin, just hours after talks of a summit, was laced with anger, historical grievances and challenges to the West, The BBC’s Sarah Rainsford and Paul Adams in Kyiv give their verdict.

So far the White House is resisting direct US involvement in Ukraine. But plans to bolster weapons and assistance may have consequences.

One of the greatest tragedies as Russia continues its illegal assault on Ukraine and as Ukrainians continue to die is that it should never have happened. The US and NATO knew what had to be done, but no one did it.

The administration’s highest priority right now should be to incentivize the Ukrainian government to conclude a compromise peace agreement with Russia to provide Putin with a face-saving “exit ramp” to allow Russia to end the war.

The president’s red line on direct US intervention is reassuring, but signals that he has given up on diplomacy are not.

Recent events suggest that Putin’s response was not calibrated to avoid a larger action in Ukraine. It is an unfortunate choice. Wherever responsibility lies for the events that have led to this crisis, war is always the wrong answer. It is unfortunate that thirty-one years of American broken promises and broken diplomacy led to this event; it is unfortunate that Russian broken diplomacy launched it. All wars must be criticized: no matter who launches them.

Moscow has steadfastly opposed expansion of the alliance eastward for 30 years

The two themes that let the Blob carry the day