What can an American president verbally afford, apart from Donald Trump, who thought he could afford anything?
Twice now, President Biden has named Putin a war criminal. Was that wise, I doubted after the first time. Didn’t he make Putin even angrier with this? But after the second time, in response to the Butsha massacre, I did appreciate Biden’s qualification. Enough was enough.
Other examples. President George W. Bush said of Osama bin Laden after 9/11: “You used to have a placard in the Wild West: ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive† Such a note, intended for criminal investigations, would also be suitable for the investigation of bin Laden, the president said. Five years later, in 2006, he admitted that he had expressed himself with little subtlety: “Tough language that sends the wrong signals.”
He also felt that in July 2003 he should not have said: “Come on (bring ’em on)”, challenging Iraqi insurgents to attack US forces in Iraq. Looking back, he said: “I don’t know if you can call it repentance, but it certainly is a lesson that as president you have to be aware of what you say sometimes.”
President Obama once said of Putin: “He has the lanky look of a bored kid in the back of the class.” Fiona Hill, an adviser to Bush, Obama and Trump, recently said she shuddered when she heard Obama say that. And also when, in response to the annexation of Crimea, he called Russia “a regional power” that threatened its neighbors not “out of strength, but of weakness”. Hill: “We said openly to Obama, ‘Don’t belittle him, he’s easily offended.'”
If that’s true, Putin must have exploded like one of his many land mines when Biden called him a war criminal. That will never work out between those two. Biden cannot take this unequivocal insult if he is to remain a credible president. When the Russians will soon be satisfied with some form of peace in Ukraine, Biden can hardly say: “Vladimir looked like a war criminal for a while, but on closer inspection he turned out better than expected.”
Once a war criminal, always a war criminal. It is good to state that, because I already foresee the weak knees in the West once that peace is there. Immediately the crucial question will arise: what do we do with Putin?
Shall we take him in grace again and bake with him, as usual, the sweet rolls that we have always eaten so eagerly? As if nothing happened, do we roll out the red carpet for him when he comes on a state visit? Can we have a nice beer with him again? No, many will now cry, but will they be so steadfast in the future?
I can dream of the arguments the realos will throw at the fundis: we must go on together, we must not choke on our anger, one Versailles is enough, Putin will have learned his lesson, we cannot tell the Russians which leader they will have to take, and so on, and so on† etcetera† and so weiter† et ainsi de suite† e così via†
In 2014, Austria was the first Western country to receive Putin again after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in the same year. Bad example makes bad following.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of April 13, 2022