Proxy war in Ukraine because Biden and Blinken bear a grudge?

Much has been said in recent days about Putin’s reasons for invading Ukraine and about his state of mind.
Putin is seeing the collapse of the Soviet Union as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”
Condoleezza Rice is seeing “a different Putin” who “seems erratic” and has “an ever-deepening delusional rendering of history.”
A former U.S. ambassador to Russia about Putin: "He has changed. He sounds completely disconnected from reality. He sounds unhinged."
Boris Johnson on Putin: “He is clearly in an illogical and irrational frame of mind.” Prompting speculation that Putin might be crazy.
Not much has been said about Biden’s and Blinken’s policies and reactions in relation to Putin and the invasion of Ukraine and only Biden’s antagonists have questioned his mental capacities and health.
What is evident though is that Biden and Blinken has shown a very belligerent stance against Putin and Russia. Only a result of Putin’s surprisingly drastic invasion or may there be other explanations?
Here an attempt to explain President Biden’s and Secretary Blinken’s belligerent stance using reasoning similar to the reasoning about Putin’s motives. Alas, with just as little factual evidence of course.
Let us see how this might play out.

Biden’s and Blinken’s frustrated stance in 2014
To understand their belligerence towards Putin and Russia it is worthwhile to cast a glance at Biden’s and Blinken’s views and attitudes back in 2014 when Russia made what Obama called an incursion into Crimea, and Russia supported pro-Russian separatist in Luhansk and Donetsk.
With a “Don’t do stupid s—" approach to foreign policy President Obama recognised that Ukraine was a core interest for Russia, but certainly not in the same way for the U.S. Resulting in a careful and measured approach to Russia. A Russia that Obama apparently saw as a regional power in decline.
Vice-president Biden evidently stood for a more belligerent approach. “When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed President Barack Obama to take decisive action, and fast, to make Moscow “pay in blood and money” for its aggression. The president, a Biden aide recalled, was having none of it.” (NYT).
According to the article in the New York Times Biden tried to persuade President Obama to send lethal weapons to Ukraine in the shape of Javelin anti-tank missiles, but apparently Obama would have none of it.
Instead, Biden was made emissary to the region and send off with Obama’s warning “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government.” (NYT). Something the U.S. and the EU have done for years since 2014, and now causing President Zelensky to plea more and more desperate and incoherent for interventions that would led war in all Europe.

Biden’s frustration in 2014 clouding his view today?
In April 2014 Biden vowed that the U.S. would never recognize Russia’s “illegal occupation” of Crimea and said “no nation has the right to simply grab land from another” and called on Russia to stop supporting masked gunmen who have seized government buildings across the east of the country.” (NYT).
In November 2014 after a meeting with Ukrainian leaders Biden criticised Russia for not lessening its aggressive stand towards Ukraine. “Instead we’ve seen more provocative action, more blatant disregard for the agreement signed not long ago by Russia. As long as that continues Russia will face rising cost, greater isolation.”(Los Angeles Times).
Now with Biden being President he sems finally to be able to act on a grudge he may have carried with him since 2014. Sending the infamous Javelin missiles in large numbers to Ukraine, creating rising costs for Russia and making every attempt to isolate Russia.
Perhaps Biden is not so different in his reactions from Putin in this regard. Perhaps like him acting on personal a grudge, he has had carried with him for a long time.

What about Blinken then?
First it is worth noting that Blinken’s relationship with Biden goes back a long time. His presentation at the U.S. Department of State homepage states:
“Mr. Blinken was national security advisor to then-Vice President Joe Biden. This was the continuation of a long professional relationship that stretched back to 2002, when Mr. Blinken began his six-year stint as Democratic staff director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then Senator Biden was the chair of that committee from 2001 to 2003 and 2007 to 2009”
In 2014 “Blinken was nominated and confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State under former Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Blinken played a key role in guiding President Obama’s foreign policy, particularly his strategy in the Middle East and response to the Russian annexation of Ukraine.” (InfluenceWatch).
Blinken certainly seems to have had a negative view of Russia and President Putin for quite some time, just like Biden.
In 2014 at an event at the Brookings Institute he argued: “One way President Putin and Russia define power is by the geopolitical influence that Russia is able to obtain. And undermining Russia politically in the international community and isolating it politically diminishes that power." (Newsweek)
At a confirmation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 2014 Blinken argued like Biden for providing Ukraine with lethal weapons. Speaking about Russian aggression he said:
“One element that could hopefully get them to think twice and deter them from further action is strengthening the capacity of the Ukrainian forces, including with defensive lethal equipment. So that’s why I think that’s something that we should be looking at.”
Blinken in 2014 also argued that the sanctions put in place in 2014 would mean that Russia would really be hit. In an interview as deputy national security advisor, he argued (please note this is quote from March 2014, not from 2022 when Blinken is almost repeating himself).
“Actually, the compact that President Putin has with his people is if you remain politically compliant, I’ll deliver growth for you. That growth has stagnated even before this crisis. And everything that’s happened since, as a result of the efforts we’ve made, to isolate Russia for its actions in Ukraine has only made that worse.
And what we’re seeing every single day is Russia getting more and more isolated and its economy taking a bigger and bigger hit.
We had the finance minister of Russia worrying out loud in public about the hit that the economy was taking. We have the leader of the Association of Entrepreneurs, basically the oligarchs’ club, saying I’m really worried about investment drying up. This is having an impact on Russia. This has to get Putin to think twice.” (CNN).
Apparently not enough of hit to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, after none of Putin’s three essential demands had been seriously considered by Blinken and Biden.

Is Biden and Blinken having their revenge for 2014?
As we have seen one might perhaps argue that both Biden and Blinken have born a deepfelt grudge against Putin and Russia since the Crimea invasion in 2014 and felt regret that what was done in 2014 wasn’t enough to persuade Putin to give up his aggression against Ukraine. He did not leave Crimea and did not stop his support for the rebels in Luhansk and Donetsk.
The difference between 2022 and 2014 is that Biden and Blinken now have it in their power to carry out what they wanted to do in 2014. Apparently in the belief that Russia will act differently this time.
Free to do what they wanted to in 2014 and convinced that this time they both save Ukrainian sovereignty and cause Putin and Russia to fail, they are willing to support and wage a very risky proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. With Ukraine now bearing the disastrous  consequences.
This might explain why they had no thought for any seriously meant diplomatic solution that would answer Russia’s concerns.
Just listen Blinken at a recent press briefing with UK’s Liz Truss on March 9:
”So our response continues to be to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the Ukrainians have the means to defend themselves; to make sure we do everything we possibly can to exert pressure on Russia and on Putin to change course; to do everything we possibly can, of course, to support those who are suffering as a result of Russia’s actions.
Ultimately, I am absolutely convinced that Putin will fail and Russia will suffer a strategic defeat no matter what short-term tactical gains it may make in Ukraine. As we’ve said before, you can win a battle but that doesn’t mean you win the war – on the contrary. You can take a city but you can’t take the hearts and minds of its people, and Ukrainians are demonstrating that every single day.”
All the while Ukraine is doomed to bear the terrible consequences of what may after all be less a result of insurmountable differences between Russia and the U.S. over the Ukrainian independence and security, than of long held grudges borne by the decisionmakers in the conflict.”
You may argue that the idea that U.S. is willing to wage a proxy with Russia for reasons related to lack of success in 2014 is highly speculative.
Perhaps so, as the reasoning cannot be substantiated by facts, but big policy decisions in peace and war are certainly not only a result of some facts, but of fateful decisions made by those believing in power, highflying ideals, or low motives, or as we perhaps seen here, long term grudges, hidden behind a modern version of the emperor’s new clothes.

Europe should think twice
If there is any truth in what is surmised here, then Europe should be very hesitant of doing what the two B’s are now persuading and pressuring Europe to do.
What is needed is an independent European stance, even realising how weak it is, in as much as Europe do not carry a Rooseveltian big stick, but is only able to talk very loudly. But then talk might actually help bring about a diplomatic compromise over Ukraine with Russia.
After all Europe will have to live with Russia also in future, whatever the outcome of the present conflict, while the U.S. in reality will be forced to be less concerned with Russia and Ukraine and more with a Chinese hegemon.
Although judging from the belligerence and yellow-blue jingoism shown in Europe at the moment it does not look as if European decisionmakers are realising that.