I see your point, especially considering the Russia-Ukraine War being seen as a more current ongoing conflict, but I still feel it would have been easier depicting Biden as a war criminal to a western audience (which has been thoroughly propagandized into uncritically supporting virtually every action of NATO and the Ukrainian government and know essentially nothing about the historical context leading up to the invasion) by reminding them that Biden was still commander in chief during part of the war in Afghanistan and personally authorized attacks that overwhelmingly murdered civilians:

Any doubts that he would plow a different path from every single occupant of the White House before he has been put to bed following the admission this week that the drone strike he personally authorized wiped out the family of an NGO worker in the Kabul suburbs.

The killing of 10 people, including six children, was a terrible mistake, according to US Central Command chief General Frank McKenzie this week as they finally admitted that there were no Isis-K fighters present when missiles struck two cars in the Afghan capital in the aftermath of a suicide bomb at Kabul International Airport in which 175 were killed.

But we already knew this. The neighbors of aid worker Zemari Ahmadi knew it too, as they peeled what was left of him and his children from the walls where they had been happily playing just moments before.

Those dismissed as “collateral damage” had names. Zemari Ahmadi and his children Zamir (20), Faisal (16) Farzad (10); Ahmad Naser and his nephews Arwin (7), Benyamin (6) and Hayat (2), and two girls Malika (3) and Somaya (2); murdered by the US state.

The aftermath was described as a horror scene with “human flesh stuck to the walls, bones fallen into bushes, walls stained red with blood, shattered glass everywhere.” They were only able to find the legs of ten-year-old Farzad.

You’re going to be in an uphill battle trying to convince westerners that Biden is a war criminal for militarily backing a country that has been invaded by a larger power, one that has been depicted by the western media and politicians for years as uniquely evil and responsible for their socioeconomic and political unrest. At the moment it does appear that the invasion may have accelerated the transition more towards a multipolar world order (hell, even an inter-imperialist capitalist multipolar world order may very well be preferable compared to the hellish nightmare that the global south has suffered under with the US-led unipolar capitalist order, as Russia’s interactions with the third world are generally at the very least a much lesser evil despite also being a reactionary capitalist oligarchy), but the invasion has also greatly boosted support for NATO across Europe and resulted in two more countries likely being admitted to NATO (how great the impact that this has I suppose is debatable). Some of the western imperial core's actions during this war have predictably backfired, like the sanctions, but a lot of this still remains to be seen.

Had a feeling this video was going to cause people to overreact. Some of the people who are still arguing about this appear to have not even watched the video. Most of the video is BadEmpanada broadly agreeing with many of Waters' points and dunking on the liberal CNN reporter while also criticizing Waters' decision to bring up the Russia-Ukraine war as an example of Biden being a war criminal when he had vastly better options to choose from. He could have mentioned Biden's support for the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan and his continued policy of starving the country with sanctions, backing Saudi Arabia in their genocidal war on Yemen, and his past support for the NATO-led war on Libya that brought slavery back to Africa. Russia ultimately still had agency and could have decided to not invade Ukraine despite western provocations, but they decided instead to get baited by the west into launching an idiotic full-scale invasion. He does suggest that Waters looks like a "genius" in comparison to the lib reporter. He also does go a bit overboard with the insults, and is a bit uncharitable to Waters considering he's being suddenly put on the spot during the interview about the topic and doesn't exactly have the time to work out the best carefully worded response.

China had an even more severe drug problem before the revolution:

Another country that once had an addiction problem—one that lasted for almost 200 years and involved an incredible 25 per cent of its population—is China.

China was forced into addiction by the Opium Wars. Contrary to popular belief, these wars—from 1839 to 1842 —did not originate because China wanted to export opium. They began when China resisted England's demand to import opium in exchange for Chinese products—mostly tea, silk, and porcelain. China lost these wars, and among other indignities was forced to exchange its goods for opium. As a result it became a highly narcoticized country, a victim of ruthless Western economic and political policy. By 1850 an entire fifth of the revenue of the British Government of India — the source of opium — came from Chinese consumption of this drug.

Unlike the CPP, which had decided to engage in tailism by aiding and staunchly supporting a reactionary capitalist government that made it clear from the beginning about their intentions to just outright violently exterminate drug addicts, most of whom were the urban poor working class (what communist parties are supposed to help represent and save from addiction), Mao’s Communist Party had a vastly different program to tackle the issue:

Equally significant in the Chinese drive to eliminate narcotic addiction were its methods of plugging the source, China is 80 percent rural, and an unknown but significant part of the land had been turned into poppy cultivation. The first major economic and political mass campaign of the Government was land reform, and this aim was coordinated with elimination of poppy growth. Distribution of land from large landholders to landless peasants was accompanied by the need to convert the opium cash crops to badly needed food crops. Today China produces enough opium to meet its medical needs, but no more.

Smuggled opium was still a source of the drug, and China acted to stop this supply with a policy of “carrot and stick.” Leniency was recommended for employees and workers of opium traffickers; but heavy penalties existed for those controlling the traffic, manufacture, or growth of opium.

China's attitude toward the individual reformed addict was one of good willed congratulations, and represents another important reason why the narcotic problem was overcome. The rehabilitation of opium addicts began with their registration. Arrangements by city‐wide antiopium committees for addict rehabilitation included treatment to break the habit at home, in clinics and in hospitals.

At every stage of personal rehabilitation the ideological motivation was stressed. Given China's attitudes, this ideology was strong on political, social, and economic information. But the important thing is that the anti drug campaign recognized that the desire and will of the addict is ultimately the controlling factor of addiction. China's policy was not simply to deprive a person of drugs, but to replace the need for narcotics with a forceful, national commitment. Equally significant, the former addict was fully accepted back into Chinese life without official stigma or prejudice.

Additionally:

Clinics were opened for the treatment of addicts, and indigent addicts were treated free of charge. An estimated one-third of the addicts "kicked" their habits by going "cold turkey." According to a report from Canton in 1952, of 5,723 registered addicts, 4,709 (or 82 percent) had been cured, with an astounding 4,265 of those (90.5 percent) having been cured at home. Chemotherapy was employed in some clinics and hospitals, but it is unclear which drugs were used. Most cures involved a gradual reduction of dosage, and took approximately 12 days to complete.

A single theme ran throughout the Chinese anti-opium campaign. This was that the addicts were victims of an oppressive system, and not criminals or social deviants. The anti-opium campaign was only part of an overall social policy which attempted to rid the country of many forms of oppression. In small meetings and mass rallies the people were told that now they had the opportunity to destroy remnants of the past such as opium addiction. The peasants and workers strongly supported this Mass Line and it was their unified, collective pressure which in the final analysis conquered opium addiction in China. Starting at the level of the chia (approximately ten family groups) they met to discuss the problem of addiction as it applied to their locale. Women's Federation and Youth League groups organized committees to aid the government, and wives and mothers were mobilized to put pressure on their addicted husbands and sons.

This mass support, so essential to the success of the antiopium campaign, was generated by the overall social reform which eliminated the cycle of poverty and frustration throughout China. Every citizen was guaranteed -- for the first time -- the right to enough food to live on, the right to a decent place in which to live, the right to a job, and the right to a basic equality of opportunity. These guarantees in turn supplied the people with a sense of purpose and faith in the future. Not only were the current addicts treated, but this sense of national purpose worked to insure that a new generation of addicts would not arrive to replace them. Today, the problem of addiction is so remote as to be an historical curiosity.

Meanwhile, the CPP’s leadership tried to falsely portray the right-wing Duterte as a progressive Hugo Chávez-like leader to the masses while also whitewashing Duterte's record in the party’s support of him:

One example: there is an allusion to Sison suggesting Philippine president Duterte could be a Chávez-like figure. But Sison was not just simply wrong in his assessment of what Duterte’s presidency would be like — he helped to bring it about. During the campaigning period, Sison spoke highly of Duterte, claimed a Duterte presidency would be good for “national unity” and, unique in Philippine history, had (via Skype) a publicized sympathetic talk with the presidential candidate. During the same period, the NPA released several POW’s to Duterte, further bolstering his claim he would be able to reach a peace agreement with them. All this helped create sympathy for Duterte among the National-Democratic mass base.

After Duterte became president, Sison called for a “critical honeymoon period” between Duterte and the National-Democrats. Sison suggested that Duterte would soon sign an agreement with the NDF and implement far-reaching social reforms. The CPP spoke of an “alliance” being forged between it and the president. Leading figures from the Nation-Democratic movement entered the cabinet, despite the rapidly escalating violence of the “war on drugs.”

This violence did not come as a surprise. From the late eighties on, Duterte was the mayor of Davao City. Long before he became president, he organized a death squad that murdered hundreds, mostly petty criminals, drug addicts, and street children. Despite this, Duterte and National-Democratic leaders cultivated cordial links.

The total death count of Duterte’s “war on drugs” is in the thousands and is still increasing. Sison carries part of the responsibility for this.

The CPP for decades has also engaged in Shining Path-like tactics, including the assassination of rival leftists, while the right continues to consolidate power: https://jacobin.com/2018/09/community-party-philippines-sison-ndf-murder

The CPP on foreign policy:

Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) enthusiastically endorsed the right-wing Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny and the protests against the Putin government triggered by Navalny’s return to Russia and arrest.

Released by the CPP’s chief information officer Marco Valbuena, the statement declared: “All democracy-loving people must support and emulate the mass protest actions in Russia against the Putin fascist regime, particularly against the plans of the dictator to extend his power by seeking a third term.”

The statement, while ferocious in its denunciations of Putin and his “tyrannical, corrupt and criminal regime,” is completely uncritical of “critic and opposition leader” Navalny, who is backed by US imperialism and its allies. Indeed, one of the first actions of the Biden administration has been to demand Navalny’s release.

Whatever the criminality of the Putin regime, there is nothing remotely progressive about Navalny. In the final analysis, he articulates the same class interests—those of the Russian bourgeoisie. >His tirades against “corruption” and “crooks and thieves” at the top are simply attempts to mask his ruthless, pro-market agenda of imposing economic austerity, cutting taxes and red tape for corporations, and privatising semi-state-owned enterprises.

Navalny’s contempt for democratic rights and the working class is summed up in his links to extreme-right forces within Russia, where he has addressed far-right marches on numerous occasions. He used to be a member of the organisational council of the Russian March, an annual event organised by the country’s fascist and far-right forces.

The fact that none of this is mentioned in the CPP statement is no accident. It supports Navalny precisely because it is lining up with sections of the ruling class most closely aligned with US imperialism, represented by Vice-President Leni Robredo and her Liberal Party.

The CPP’s denunciations of Duterte are utterly cynical. The Stalinists backed his election in 2016 and sought to form a political alliance with his administration, even supporting his murderous “war on drugs” directed against the working class. It was Duterte, under pressure from the military, not the CPP, that broke relations and then turned the armed forces against the CPP’s rural guerrillas.

In an opportunist about-face, the CPP is now aligning with the bourgeois political opposition to Duterte, headed by Robredo and the Liberal Party. The CPP has repeatedly appealed to the disgruntled pro-US elements of the military to withdraw support from Duterte and install Robredo.

Like Navalny in Russia, the Liberal Party in the Philippines has only tactical differences with the current regime, primarily over foreign policy. It has repeatedly criticised Duterte for his ties with Beijing and branded him as a puppet of China.

Any new Liberal Party regime would be just as ruthless as Duterte in trampling on democratic rights and the working class. The Philippine bourgeoisie as a whole confronts a deep economic and social crisis as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The country has reported more than 500,000 cases and 10,000 coronavirus deaths—the second-highest toll in South East Asia after Indonesia.

Obviously the CPP, even with its leadership's history of opportunism and blunders, should still be supported (support should be very critical though) over the right-wing Duterte, Marcos Jr., or Leni.

The CPP has also followed the CPRF in being the only major communist parties in the world to take a reactionary libertarian anti-vax stance that harms the working class most:

The Stalinist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) has attacked the half-measures of the Duterte administration from the right. They do not demand more effective mandatory vaccination, the closure of employment as the essential activity loophole, closure of all non-essential businesses, and cash aid to the working population. Rather, the CPP denounces mandatory vaccination as “fascist,” demands the full reopening of schools and an end to all lockdowns.

On January 8, Marco Valbuena, chief information officer of the CPP, issued a statement denouncing the vaccine mandate as “patently discriminatory, unlawful, fascist, burdensome, and above all, useless and stupid.” The CPP did not simply argue that the mandate could not be enforced until vaccines were fully available, but went further and adopted the argument of far-right and libertarian forces that vaccination was “a choice of every individual,” and should not be imposed. The CPP issued a second statement that declared “Requiring or mandating people to get vaccinated is discriminatory, oppressive and burdensome.”

The concern of the CPP, however, is not public health or the mass infection of workers, but the continued profits of corporations. Valbuena wrote “Prohibiting more than half the population from becoming economically productive will only further collapse the economy marked by business closures and bankruptcies, widespread unemployment, loss of income, dislocations, supply disruptions and cause the further deterioration of the people’s overall socioeconomic conditions.”

The CPP articulates the economic interests of the capitalist class, who are hostile to any public health measure that will limit their business activity and the production of profit. Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, school closures—all necessary measures to save human lives and put an end to the spread of the pandemic—are opposed by the elite and their allies in the CPP.

The positions adopted by the CPP are often indistinguishable from those of the far-right. Founder and ideological leader of the CPP, Jose Ma. Sison has on multiple occasions shared material on Facebook originating with the far-right, decrying vaccines as part of a campaign of “global genocide” staged by the “Vatican’s UN.”

Sison promoted material from Afshine Emrani, a Los Angeles based physician and right-wing Zionist, who has been trumpeting the lie that Omicron was “nothing more than a seasonal cold virus” and would produce global immunity to COVID. Sison wrote on January 6, that “people can welcome Omicron as the effective vaccine developed by mass herd immunity.”

Whatever vaccine hesitancy exists in the Philippines, the CPP has been instrumental in cultivating it.

Not only does the party oppose mandatory vaccination, it is the spearhead of the drive to re-open schools.

The CPP has similarly opposed all lockdown measures implemented by the government.

The CPP did not demand aid to the working class and poor communities, but the lifting of lockdown.

Just as the opportunist leaders of the CPRF often try to uncritically appeal to the Orthodox Church, there are leaders in the CPP that do the same with the Catholic Church:

On February 18, Julieta de Lima, long-time leading member of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and head of the party’s peace negotiating team, delivered a speech to a summit of major church leaders in which she articulated the CPP’s open embrace of the Catholic Church and its legacy of medieval barbarism in the country.

The CPP enthusiastically supported Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte during his rise to power. They sought to integrate themselves into his administration, while he oversaw a war on drugs that killed thousands of poor Filipinos. When the talks finally broke down, the party denounced him as a fascist. De Lima publicly admitted at the religious gathering that the party was now resuming “backchannel discussions” with the Duterte administration, and was relying on the “miraculous” power of “prayer” that Duterte might have a conversion.

Any leftist who supported Duterte or Marcos Jr. deserves to be ridiculed, and we also can't just ignore the fact that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) once strongly backed the Duterte regime and even supported and offered to help execute his reactionary murderous drug war:

As recently installed Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte escalates his war on the country’s drug problem, he has found willing allies in the country’s communists.

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) said in a statement on Saturday that it had authorized its in-house militia, the New People’s Army (NPA), to “disarm and arrest” drug lords, local news site GMA News reports

“The CPP reiterates its standing order for the NPA to carry out operations to disarm and arrest the chieftains of the biggest drug syndicates, as well as other criminal syndicates involved in human rights violations and destruction of the environment,” the statement said.

Duterte was sworn in last Thursday, nearly two months after his landslide election win on a promise to eradicate crime, and has thus far wasted no time in making good on that pledge. He has targeted the Southeast Asian nation’s drug trade with particular gusto, telling not only police but even the general public to “go ahead and kill” addicts themselves.

The CPP said in the statement that it has "long been carrying out a campaign against drug use and drug trafficking" and it "employs armed violence against the biggest traffickers of illegal drugs."

After the CPP had engaged in denialism to cover up their record in their endorsement and collaboration with the far-right Duterte regime:

In opening his lecture, Scalice systematically demolishes Sison’s bald declaration that it was a big lie that “the CPP was the enabler and supporter of Duterte.” Scalice provides irrefutable proof in the form of photos and quotes from Sison, the CPP and its associated front organisations of their close collaboration with the fascistic president and his war on drugs. His lecture explains why, based on an examination of its Maoist ideology, the CPP has promoted figures like Duterte as representatives of the “progressive bourgeoisie,” which invariably turn on the working class and peasantry.

Additionally:

After Duterte offered cabinet positions to three members of the national democratic movement, closely aligned with the CPP, Sison told CNN in an interview on May 16, 2016: “I would like to thank president Duterte. I am very proud of him... He was once my student at the Lyceum of the Philippines, and I share in the joy of his success. I wish him to succeed in his mission as president. He promises to be the first left president of the Philippines and he will keep his socialist orientation.”

Sison wishes he could erase this statement, and many similar ones, from the historical record. Far from being a mere “diplomatic gesture” towards peace, it was a categorical endorsement of Duterte and an attempt to give him “socialist” credentials.

By this point, Duterte had already promised to conduct a murderous “war on drugs” and fill Manila Bay with 100,000 corpses. As Dr. Scalice explained, when the CPP-allied organisations promoted Duterte in 2015, and when, in Mindanao, they openly and vigorously campaigned for him in 2016, the leaders were well aware of his fascistic politics. For years as mayor of Davao he had operated extrajudicial death squads and had been a key ally of the national democratic movement.

Sison now claims that “the CPP has always been for the solution of the drug problem as a health problem and for cracking down on the drug lords, especially at the top level…” In fact, the party and its allied organisations hailed Duterte’s “war on drugs,” which targeted the poor.

Ang Bayan, the CPP’s main publication, wrote on June 21, 2016: “The people will completely support [puspusang susuportahan] the steps that Duterte will take to remove and punish the drug syndicates.”