I wonder if you ever commented that the previous president was mocked not only in the US but especially around the world. Or if he was feckless when he proposed injecting bleach or nuking a hurricane. Biden might be a bit slow thanks to his age but he’s not a dangerous imbecile.
Looks like it wasn't a great time for Putin to invade after all. Biden is feckless with Putin, not because he is old or senile, it is because of economics. He is a neoliberal like the rest of the leaders in Europe and they are global capitalists who do not want to isolate Putin and his country's wealthy elite. They want to restrict Putin if possible, but keep him as a member of their global neoliberal economic club. Biden stopped the Pentagon's plans to send more advisors to Ukraine in the summer of 2021, and stopped the shipment of jets in March. Biden and elite members of the Democratic and Republican parties aren't so much afraid of Putin starting a nuclear war, as they are of him taking his country's vast resources and oligarch wealth out of the economic slop that exists between Europe and America. The reason Biden is afraid of Putin has more to do with economics than it does war fighting. Vlad's fascist capitalism is making many elites around the world rich, and Biden can't upset that applecart.
A good article re: Russia's practicalities in Ukraine, but it's hard to take seriously the attack on Biden when the three sources cited are two opinion pieces from right-wing think tanks and one Youtube clip of him tripping on some stairs. No politician in the world would survive that level of assessment.
Boris Johnson, a man bought and paid for, handing out aristocratic titles to Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin? Donald Trump, a man so corrupt he undermined NATO while also withholding military aid from Ukraine in a (hoped for) exchange for political favours? The German SPD, a party with a long history of Ostpolitik, most infamously with Gerhard Schröder?
Of all the politicians to lay blame for this, your targeting is peculiar. The Western response to Russia's military build-up was unquestionably too weak, but there's a great deal of blame to go around on that score, and it's hard (read: unreasonable) to suggest that Biden is somehow at the epicentre of it.
Adam, the US remains the epicenter of NATO and President Biden has both the authority and responsibility to shape the alliance's actions from a position of strength. He has continually failed to do so. It is the United States that provides the bulk of the combat power and strategic deterrence within the alliance. Europe can't because Europe as a whole refuses to honor its Article 2 & 3 commitments. As such when NATO fails, it is first and foremost an American failure.
If you believe Biden's public speeches, actions, and displayed physical frailty did not inform Putin's assessment of him prior to committing his latest round of aggression, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Russian leader. The AUKUS debacle, the Afghan withdrawal, and removing sanctions on NS-2 further informed the rest of the alliance just what sort of leader he is. Biden is no wartime consigliere, Putin recognized this, and now Europe is witnessing a war while NATO displays timidity.
That's gracious of you, but we shouldn't whitewash the abrogation of responsibility from Europe. German, French, British, EU, etc. leadership has been contradictory or palpably weak. I say this as a European; we would have given Biden no political cover or support had he attempted to drive a hawkish policy vis-a-vis Ukraine. Our leaders did nothing. I appreciate that the US provides the majority of the military force behind NATO but Europeans can clearly push for action when they actually care (e.g. Blair on intervention in Kosovo or Kohl regarding reunification). They didn't in Ukraine, and Ukrainians are paying the price.
As for AUKUS, Afghanistan, NS-2... these are all reasonable points, and Biden should rightly be criticised for them. But the idea that the absence of these would have deterred Putin from invading Ukraine? That's dubious.
I doubt that anything short of (a) massive new sanctions or (b) a token NATO deployment into Ukraine before mid-February would have prevented the invasion. There was zero political appetite for either of those, anywhere. Therefore, the invasion was going ahead. I don't buy the idea that Putin was wavering on the edge and Biden blundering his Afghan exit, a few speeches and a flight of stairs was what tipped him over. Putin is not skittish and risk-averse. He has consistently taken enormous risks to further his vision, and he understands that the West likes to talk tough but do nothing. Nothing will deter that short of hard power deployed in his path.
The only useful and relevant conclusion we can make is "Did x person do the thing that would have prevented the invasion? If not, why not? Was it a justifiable decision?" Biden didn't advocate for significant new sanctions and he didn't put an MEU (or equivalent) in Odessa. Therefore, invasion. Anything else is just red meat for Fox News to salivate over.
I'm conscious that you wrote your blog before this all kicked off so we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and you didn't at the time. That's a rough gig. But you've doubled down in your response so it seems you still believe these US missteps made a substantive difference in the invasion going ahead. I don't.
Ironic considering the previous president was no less competent in international affairs; The Afghan withdraw was set into motion by the Trump administration, it is fair to say that as an opportunist Trump would have allowed for the AUKUS episode to happen on his watch (as to assert himself with Macron), and pointing the the NS-2 is a mute point considering it never was brought on-line. On the contrary, Biden's engagement in wanting to treat European is a partner is what I think helped allow for (most) European powers to redouble for swift sanction-reaction shortly following the invasion.
But realism dictated that Europe (and the US) found a spine. Sadly, with the way democracies work, you need an unexpected attack/invasion to rev up the masses. There was little appetite in the US to join WWII before Pearl Harbor.
I wonder if you ever commented that the previous president was mocked not only in the US but especially around the world. Or if he was feckless when he proposed injecting bleach or nuking a hurricane. Biden might be a bit slow thanks to his age but he’s not a dangerous imbecile.
Looks like it wasn't a great time for Putin to invade after all. Biden is feckless with Putin, not because he is old or senile, it is because of economics. He is a neoliberal like the rest of the leaders in Europe and they are global capitalists who do not want to isolate Putin and his country's wealthy elite. They want to restrict Putin if possible, but keep him as a member of their global neoliberal economic club. Biden stopped the Pentagon's plans to send more advisors to Ukraine in the summer of 2021, and stopped the shipment of jets in March. Biden and elite members of the Democratic and Republican parties aren't so much afraid of Putin starting a nuclear war, as they are of him taking his country's vast resources and oligarch wealth out of the economic slop that exists between Europe and America. The reason Biden is afraid of Putin has more to do with economics than it does war fighting. Vlad's fascist capitalism is making many elites around the world rich, and Biden can't upset that applecart.
A good article re: Russia's practicalities in Ukraine, but it's hard to take seriously the attack on Biden when the three sources cited are two opinion pieces from right-wing think tanks and one Youtube clip of him tripping on some stairs. No politician in the world would survive that level of assessment.
Boris Johnson, a man bought and paid for, handing out aristocratic titles to Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin? Donald Trump, a man so corrupt he undermined NATO while also withholding military aid from Ukraine in a (hoped for) exchange for political favours? The German SPD, a party with a long history of Ostpolitik, most infamously with Gerhard Schröder?
Of all the politicians to lay blame for this, your targeting is peculiar. The Western response to Russia's military build-up was unquestionably too weak, but there's a great deal of blame to go around on that score, and it's hard (read: unreasonable) to suggest that Biden is somehow at the epicentre of it.
Adam, the US remains the epicenter of NATO and President Biden has both the authority and responsibility to shape the alliance's actions from a position of strength. He has continually failed to do so. It is the United States that provides the bulk of the combat power and strategic deterrence within the alliance. Europe can't because Europe as a whole refuses to honor its Article 2 & 3 commitments. As such when NATO fails, it is first and foremost an American failure.
If you believe Biden's public speeches, actions, and displayed physical frailty did not inform Putin's assessment of him prior to committing his latest round of aggression, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Russian leader. The AUKUS debacle, the Afghan withdrawal, and removing sanctions on NS-2 further informed the rest of the alliance just what sort of leader he is. Biden is no wartime consigliere, Putin recognized this, and now Europe is witnessing a war while NATO displays timidity.
That's gracious of you, but we shouldn't whitewash the abrogation of responsibility from Europe. German, French, British, EU, etc. leadership has been contradictory or palpably weak. I say this as a European; we would have given Biden no political cover or support had he attempted to drive a hawkish policy vis-a-vis Ukraine. Our leaders did nothing. I appreciate that the US provides the majority of the military force behind NATO but Europeans can clearly push for action when they actually care (e.g. Blair on intervention in Kosovo or Kohl regarding reunification). They didn't in Ukraine, and Ukrainians are paying the price.
As for AUKUS, Afghanistan, NS-2... these are all reasonable points, and Biden should rightly be criticised for them. But the idea that the absence of these would have deterred Putin from invading Ukraine? That's dubious.
I doubt that anything short of (a) massive new sanctions or (b) a token NATO deployment into Ukraine before mid-February would have prevented the invasion. There was zero political appetite for either of those, anywhere. Therefore, the invasion was going ahead. I don't buy the idea that Putin was wavering on the edge and Biden blundering his Afghan exit, a few speeches and a flight of stairs was what tipped him over. Putin is not skittish and risk-averse. He has consistently taken enormous risks to further his vision, and he understands that the West likes to talk tough but do nothing. Nothing will deter that short of hard power deployed in his path.
The only useful and relevant conclusion we can make is "Did x person do the thing that would have prevented the invasion? If not, why not? Was it a justifiable decision?" Biden didn't advocate for significant new sanctions and he didn't put an MEU (or equivalent) in Odessa. Therefore, invasion. Anything else is just red meat for Fox News to salivate over.
I'm conscious that you wrote your blog before this all kicked off so we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and you didn't at the time. That's a rough gig. But you've doubled down in your response so it seems you still believe these US missteps made a substantive difference in the invasion going ahead. I don't.
Ironic considering the previous president was no less competent in international affairs; The Afghan withdraw was set into motion by the Trump administration, it is fair to say that as an opportunist Trump would have allowed for the AUKUS episode to happen on his watch (as to assert himself with Macron), and pointing the the NS-2 is a mute point considering it never was brought on-line. On the contrary, Biden's engagement in wanting to treat European is a partner is what I think helped allow for (most) European powers to redouble for swift sanction-reaction shortly following the invasion.
Prescient.
But realism dictated that Europe (and the US) found a spine. Sadly, with the way democracies work, you need an unexpected attack/invasion to rev up the masses. There was little appetite in the US to join WWII before Pearl Harbor.