Biden’s firm approach has thrown Putin off balance

President Biden is put to the test again as commander in chief† After his miscalculations about last year’s conquest of Afghanistan by the Taliban, he now has to make an even more thorny decision. The opponent this time is not a mountainous, isolated and bankrupt country in central Asia, but nuclear power Russia.

The renewed threat from Russian President Putin comes at a time when the United States appears vulnerable. Four years of Trump have battered American relations with their allies. Biden’s mandate is weak, both due to ongoing (albeit meaningless) allegations of large-scale electoral fraud and political paralysis in Washington.

Biden also appeared weak at the start of the Ukraine crisis. During a press conference three weeks ago, he said he did not know exactly how the US would react if Russia carried out not an invasion but “a small attack” on Ukrainian soil. “He made a fool of himself with that,” John Herbst, US ambassador to Ukraine from 2003-2006, said over the phone.

But since then, says George W. Bush-appointed diplomat Herbst, Biden and his security adviser Jake Sullivan have recovered well. “Biden appears to have resolved to no longer be a jandoodle.” Herbst calls Biden’s three-pronged approach “firm”: threatening sanctions, sending additional NATO troops to the alliance’s eastern border and supplying arms to Ukraine. “That was wise, at least wiser than previous governments’ response to Russian aggression.”

Putin has an impressive list of international brutalities to his name: the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the capture of Crimea and operations in eastern Ukraine. The Americans have largely viewed it with dismay. “It has given Putin the idea that he can get away with anything.” Herbst is not the only observer who believes that President Biden appears to be doing better in this crisis so far, a short tour shows.

No concessions

“The government is taking every step that is necessary,” Steven Pifer said by telephone. Pifer, also a former ambassador to Ukraine, appointed in 1998 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, points to the strengthening of the NATO alliance. “The continued insistence of the White House and the State Department on the seriousness of the threat has prompted allies to step up. You see they supplied weapons, sent troops. Putin may have hoped for panic in the West and with it concessions, but he has not received them. No concessions on arms supplies or mobilization of troops on Europe’s eastern border. And no concessions on Ukraine’s possible NATO membership either.”

Biden appears to have resolved not to be a jandoodle anymore

John Herbst Former US Ambassador to Ukraine

In recent days there has been confusion in American media about the latter point. German Chancellor Scholz said at a press conference in Moscow on Tuesday: “Everyone should take a step back and be clear that we do not want to risk a military conflict over a question that is not on the agenda.” The New York Times heard in it a willingness to haggle with that matter. Columnist Constanze Stelzenmüller of the Financial Timesthought it was a “convenient avoidance” of a thorny issue. “Scholz puts the matter on hold: no membership now, but not ‘never’.” Foreign Minister Anthony Blinken said in a TV interview Wednesday morning that the Ukrainians and their democratically elected government themselves decide on NATO membership. NATO has an open door policy.

Waiting for the march order

Last week, US media reported on the authority of security adviser Jake Sullivan that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could happen “at any time.” Later, the press even turned it into ‘Wednesday’, but Sullivan took the gas back on TV on Sunday: “Of course we still have to wait for the marching order.”

Also read: Russia remains ready for the attack

The publication of (unsubstantiated) estimates of intelligence services, according to American experts, is a wise move by the Biden administration. “This is a fascinating way to use intelligence,” James Goldgeier, a professor of international relations at the American University in Washington and author of several books on the NATO-Russia relationship, wrote in an email. “By releasing reports of possible Russian operations, the government has made it more difficult for the Russians to carry out their plans.”

Former Ambassador Herbst said the U.S. government’s reports of possible Russian plans “disbalanced Putin and made it very difficult for Russians to pretend that their country is under attack by Ukraine.”

Former ambassador Pifer emphasizes that the strategic deployment of threat bulletins does not mean that they have changed. “I’ve been in touch recently with government officials who are saying the same in private as their leaders on TV.”

Pifer is “not optimistic.” He diplomatically says he sees a “significant possibility or even a probability of an attack.” “Putin has painted himself in a corner and he doesn’t like it when his opponents show that he is bluffing.” Herbst thinks the Biden administration’s approach is “sufficient” to deter Putin. “He takes risks, but calculated risks.”

Is the threat posed by the presence of NATO soldiers and weapons and sanctions impressive enough to change Putin’s calculation? “Economic sanctions are important, but not decisive,” Goldgeier writes. “Putin probably thinks he has the reserves to sing it out.”

Weapon knocked out of hands

Herbst thinks it’s a mistake on Biden’s part that he ruled out several countermeasures. He will not use American soldiers to fight against Russians. “From a domestic political standpoint, that makes sense, but geopolitically, Biden has taken a weapon out of his hands,” Herbst said. “Just like the statement that Russia will not be excluded from the Swift payment system.”

Also read: Foreign tourists no longer come to Lviv

Nevertheless, behind all the public display of Western unity there still seems to be a certain amount of division. When European and American politicians say that “all options are on the table” as far as possible sanctions, it could also mean that they do not yet know which options they will be.

Security Advisor Sullivan said in a conference call with members of the House of Representatives saying that the allies and “especially Germany” need “continued urging” by the US. But the same Sullivan, Herbst says, has pressured Biden’s Democratic party members in Congress to, for example, exclude the controversial Nordstream 2 pipeline that brings gas directly from Russia to Germany from a package of sanctions. Republicans were not happy about it. “Biden and Sullivan are too nice to Germany. They turn a blind eye to the allies.”

What, according to these observers, are the geopolitical consequences if Russia invades Ukraine after all? What will be the conclusion that China draws, according to Biden the only real rival of the US? Goldgeier believes that China will not be able to draw any conclusions from what is happening in Ukraine, he writes in his email.

“No doubt,” Herbst says. “The Chinese would see an invasion of Ukraine as a sign of American weakness.” And Pifer says: “If Biden succeeds in providing a strong response to an invasion — united Allies, heavy sanctions — it will terrify China.”

A version of this article also appeared in NRC on the morning of February 17, 2022