A Tale of Two Leaders Pt. 1: The Best of Biden
Joe Biden has handled the Ukraine crisis almost as smartly and deftly as one could hope.
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up here.
(You can listen to the full audio of today’s newsletter here)
Is Russia walking itself off the ledge? While it’s too early to say for sure, there are at least some hopeful signs. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today that he’s moving some Russian troops away from the border with Ukraine, and Russian diplomats have called for more negotiations to resolve the crisis. Perhaps even more helpful were comments from Ukrainian President Voldemyr Zelensky playing down the potential of near-term NATO membership for his country. During a press conference yesterday with the German president, Zelensky said NATO membership is “a remote dream” and he noted that while Ukraine would still like to join the military alliance the choice is ultimately not up to Kyiv, but rather NATO members.
While it’s a bit of a stretch to argue that this is all the result of Joe Biden’s efforts, he deserves credit for his handling of the crisis so far. No matter how things turn out, it is clear that Biden has out-smarted and out-maneuvered Putin.
A Line In The Sand
From the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Biden has been very clear on what are and what are not US interests in the region — and the potential US responses to a Russian invasion. In December, he eschewed the usual “all options are on the table” talk and instead said the use of US military force was not going to happen.
In January, he told reporters, “We have no intention of putting American forces, or NATO forces, in Ukraine.” But he clarified that there “will be serious economic consequences” if Putin invades — a point that he has reiterated often. That could even include an end to the vital Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will bring natural gas from Russia to Europe.
Biden has also stated at a press conference in January, “The likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely.”
These positions, aside from laying out the limits of US policy in the region, send an implicit but important message to Putin. The US will not sit on its hands if Russia invades, but the White House is tacitly willing to accept Russia’s demands that Ukraine does not join NATO and is willing to recognize Moscow’s sphere of influence in its near abroad.
While it’s true that Biden refused to say that NATO membership is not going to happen, that type of statement was never a real possibility. To do so would mean giving in to Russia’s bullying tactics while also taking a major trade chit off the table. It’s also far from clear that such a statement would have resolved the crisis. As my friend Dr. Jeffrey Lewis recently reminded me, the US has been telling the Russians and Chinese for decades that our missile defense systems in Europe are not intended to shoot down missiles from their two countries. And they’ve never believed us! So why would Moscow suddenly take our word for it when it comes to NATO expansion?
Putin could instead judge us by our actions and not our words. The fact that every Western leader has made clear they have no intention of getting in a fighting war with Russia over Ukraine speaks volumes about the Western commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is hardly the position of an alliance that is chomping at the bit to make Ukraine its 31st member.
The open question is whether Putin wants to hear the message.
One thing that has undoubtedly helped Biden’s messaging on this issue is that basically, no Republicans are pushing him to use force in Ukraine. Senator Ted Cruz not only declared that “under no circumstances should we send our sons and daughters to die to defend Ukraine from Russia,” but he also warned that Biden might go to war over Ukraine anyway. That’s right, Cruz took the anti-war position (somewhere John McCain is rolling over in his grave)! These comments have taken substantial political pressure off of Biden. Of course, Republicans are still attacking him but not because he won’t go to war in Europe. But their criticism boils down to “he should be more strength-y and resolve-y.”
Herding Cats
Biden has also deftly managed America’s NATO partners and presented a united Western front dealing with Putin. Some of this is a hangover from the Trump years. The Europeans are delighted to have an American president who is not constantly criticizing them for missing NATO’s defense spending targets and questioning the importance of the alliance’s collective security agreement. The last thing they want to do is make Biden’s life more difficult. But at the same time, Biden has done an excellent job of soothing their concerns. The US is actively sharing intelligence with NATO allies and looking for ways to get gas supplies to the continent if war with Ukraine leads to a cut-off from Russia. By sending US troops to Romania and Poland, Biden is providing reassurance to NATO allies about the US commitment to their security.
Off-Ramps A-Plenty
Finally, Biden has given Putin multiple paths out of this crisis. Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a truly ludicrous piece by Kori Schake, who argued that Biden has done a poor job on Ukraine and blamed the president’s arrogance. But the exact opposite is the case. Rather than the perennial US tactic of threatening, cajoling, and blustering, Biden has tried to help Russia find an off-ramp from war. Early on, Biden proposed and held discussions over the future of European security. He’s engaged Russia diplomatically and treated Putin with a modicum of respect. Unlike Trump, he didn’t treat the Russian leader as if he’s a friend, but at the same time, he hasn’t punitively targeted him or overly personalized the crisis. These are not the actions of an arrogant man.
Now, if an invasion does occur, it will be seen around the world — and likely in the United States — as an illegitimate and unprovoked attack. The global onus will fall almost exclusively on Putin.
One other tool that Biden has used to make the public case for Putin’s culpability is the selective leaking of intelligence information about Russia’s plan. For months now, the intelligence community has declassified intel that suggests what Putin is thinking, the potential imminence of war, has hinted of dissent in his military ranks, and even highlighted the Kremlin’s efforts to create fake atrocities as a justification for an invasion. In a very smart paper by Christopher Bort — and put out by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — he points out that Russia’s leaders lie “insistently and incessantly” even when they don’t need to. Exposing those mistruths is an important exercise that has put Russia on the defensive. At the very least, no one is going to believe Putin’s lies if he does go to war.
None of this means that war will be avoided — and I’m not making a prediction one way or the other. Putin has backed himself into a corner on Ukraine, and even with the US and NATO giving him access to off-ramps, he may still believe that he has no choice but to act. If that is the case, it would speak to the fact that ultimately Putin could not be deterred (it would also be a terrible decision and more on that later in the week). But it won’t be from lack of effort from the United States and, if it does happen, there won’t be any doubt about who is to blame.
Musical Interlude
This old Johnny Cash number felt oddly appropriate for today’s newsletter.
During the soviet Era, I had the opportunity to visit Kyev as it was known then. Our group of American business men visited a Russian computer factory there. We were escorted by a small group of Ukrainians who drove us around that beautiful city and took us to the park above the river where there was a huge statue of Jesus Christ on the cross. Then they drove us across the river to have a country dinner at a restaurant with a view of the statue. These wonderful people were so friendly and proud of their country and clearly hated the Russians. I doubt that anything has changed in the 35 years since then.
I really don't understand this: "As my friend Dr. Jeffrey Lewis recently reminded me, the US has been telling the Russians and Chinese for decades that our missile defense systems in Europe are not intended to shoot down missiles from their two countries.". What missiles would our missile defense systems in Europe be intended to shoot down if not Russian missiles?
-Paul Bradford