The President’s misplaced fear of “World War III” and “Armageddon” has seriously undermined his administration’s support for Ukraine.
Most foreign policy analysts who recognize the importance of ensuring that Ukraine prevails over Russia credit President Biden for his leadership. But the President’s remarks Thursday (Oct. 6, 2022) to Democratic Party donors helps to illustrate why Biden deserves significantly less credit than most analysts think.
While the President has been a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, he has been overly timid and tardy about arming Ukraine with long-range precision weapons—HIMARS, tanks, jets, drones, and fighting vehicles—that would allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and quickly end the war.
Ukraine Leads; Biden Follows. The President’s hand, moreover, has been forced by Ukrainian battlefield victories that Biden did not expect or anticipate. And so, each and every time the Ukrainians succeed in battle and either stymie or defeat the Russians, they have urgently requested more and better weaponry.
Biden then follows through, belatedly, with quantitatively more and qualitatively better armaments. It is almost impossible to say no, after all, to an ally who is winning and whose moral standing in battle is as laudatory and exemplary as the Ukrainians’.
But why has Biden been so timid and so tardy to arm Ukraine?
Because, as he essentially told party donors Thursday, he’s worried that if the Ukrainian military moves too far too fast, that could force Putin into a corner, so to speak, and the result could be “Armageddon,” by which Biden means Russia’s use of nuclear weapons.
Thus, Biden continued, “We’re trying to figure out: ‘What is Putin’s off-ramp? Where does he get off? Where does he find a way out?'”
This has been Biden’s approach to Ukraine all along—from prior to the Russian invasion, when he pulled U.S. military advisers out of the country, to early in the conflict, when he said no to a “no-fly zone” and ruled out sending military jets to Ukraine.
Self-Deterrence. Biden, in fact, has been more clear and emphatic about what his administration will not do (ostensibly to prevent “World War III”) than in what it will do to ensure a Ukrainian win.
Eliot Cohen calls this “self-deterrence,” and it has been self-defeating. It signals a lack of will and resolve and it surely has emboldened Putin.
The fear of “cornering Putin” and provoking “World War III” never made much sense. In truth, Putin has cornered himself by his intransigence and insistence on erasing Ukraine as a sovereign and independent country.
The West can either stop Putin or appease him. There is no middle ground that allows him to “save face.” Putin, after all, has no interest in “saving face.” He is interested in conquering Ukraine.
As for World War III, what does that mean, exactly? The implication is that if the West is too supportive of Ukraine, it might find itself enmeshed in a difficult, multi-year conflict that engulfs all of Europe. But is that really a legitimate concern? And is it NATO or Russia that should fear a broader conflict?
The Russian military, after all, has shown itself to be utterly incompetent and incapable of defeating Ukrainian citizen soldiers. It would be quickly overwhelmed and defeated by a far superior conventional NATO military force.
Alternatively, the implication is that “World War III” would be a nuclear Armageddon that could result in worldwide destruction, and not just the destruction of Ukraine. But the rules of nuclear deterrence have not changed since the atomic bomb was developed to end World War II.
Deterrence. Any Russian nuclear strike on a NATO country means a devastating counter-nuclear strike on Russia by NATO.
That is a clearly understood by Putin and his generals. And it is why, from the advent of the Cold War in the late 1940s to the present, Russia has never launched a nuclear strike on a NATO country.
We have absolutely no reason to think that Russian thinking has suddenly changed; and that they are now suicidal and willing to risk the destruction of Moscow in order to subsume Ukraine.
Misplaced Fear. In short, the fear of “World War III” and a nuclear “Armageddon” is misplaced and counterproductive. Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Schloz, and others are using this fear as an excuse to delay arming Ukraine. But all this delay does is prolong the war and the deliberate Russian slaughter of innocent civilians.
So while it is good that Biden has stood by Ukraine, it would have been far better had he matched his pledge of support with more resolute and timely action. Yet even today, despite everything we know about Putin and Russia, Biden continues to look for ways to placate and appease the Russian dictator.
Too often, consequently, Biden is following and not leading.
What the President should do, instead, is look for ways to ensure that Russia loses and is forced to withdraw from all of Ukraine. That is the only “off-ramp” for Putin and the only way to end this war.
The bottom line: credit Biden for standing by Ukraine. However, fault him for his misplaced fear of “World War III” and “Armageddon,” which have caused him to dither and delay on critically-needed military support for Ukraine.
The President deserves a B, not an A; one or two cheers, not three, for his foreign policy vis-a-vis Ukraine.
Feature photo credit: Salon/Getty Images courtesy of Salon.