The six-month anniversary of Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine is being marked in Kyiv by the threat of an escalation in the conflict and in the United States with assessments of President Joe Biden‘s foreign policy leadership a year and a half into his administration.
Biden’s deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan, which happened a year ago this month, draws almost universal criticism compared to his handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, which has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $40 billion. But there are still lessons he can learn as the war rages on and waning public support becomes possible.
BIDEN MAY LUCK OUT ON RECESSION BEFORE NOVEMBER BUT STILL HAS TO WORRY ABOUT 2024
Biden has made “a lot of miscalculations, a lot of mistakes, a lot of missteps” before and during the Russia-Ukraine invasion, according to former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Simone Ledeen, acknowledging the conflict’s “second and third order effects” on energy and food.
Ledeen, for instance, likened Biden warning Ukraine of Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s invasion plans as an invitation for the dictator to attack. Biden underestimated Europe’s reluctance to forgo Moscow’s oil and natural gas as he advocated for sanctions as well, she said.
“The Biden administration did not get the robust support that they were expecting from NATO and non-NATO allies,” she told the Washington Examiner. “Part of the calculus also could have been related to Afghanistan and the way that we left.”
As another example, Ledeen pointed to Biden ad libbing, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” alluding to Putin, during a speech in Warsaw, Poland, shortly after the invasion.
Ambassador Nathan Sales, former acting under secretary of state for civilian security, democracy, and human rights, implored Biden to “do more” to bolster Ukraine after the death or injury of roughly 13,000 civilians as Russia increases its territory from 7% following Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea to 20%, mostly in the eastern Donbas region.
“We should provide Ukraine the weapons it needs to win, not just fight to a draw, and stop wringing our hands about provoking Vladimir Putin,” the Vanderberg Coalition advisory board member said. “We also need to up our sanctions game, targeting the energy sector and other industries that fuel the Kremlin’s war machine.”
Atlantic Council Eurasia Center Deputy Director Melinda Haring awarded Biden a B+ for his Russia-Ukraine invasion response. She praised his declassification of intelligence that negated Moscow’s advantage of surprise, in addition to his ally coalition-building. But Haring agreed with Sales, adding that Biden could have better communicated why the U.S. should be involved in a conflict 5,000 miles away.
“The only thing he’s asked Americans to do is to pay higher prices at the pump, and he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, but he’s talking to elites,” she said. “He explained what we would and would not do in terms of our policy, but the fate of this war really hangs in how long the West will support Ukraine not [only] with weapons, of course, but also with financial assistance.”
By a 6-4 margin, the public believes the U.S. should buttress Ukraine for “as long as it takes” to defeat Russia, despite higher gas and food prices, according to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. But significantly more Democrats think that than Republicans, and it is an election year plagued by 8.5% inflation in the 12 months ending July.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, now with the Brookings Institution, defended Biden’s rate of military assistance, citing depleted U.S. war stocks, particularly anti-tank FGM-148 Javelins, amid tensions with China. But Pifer shared Haring’s anxiety regarding Kyiv and public sentiment.
“[Wednesday] will be the conclusion of month six of the war, the beginning of month seven, and understandably, it’s fallen off the front pages,” he said. “I just get a little bit concerned that the more that this war seems to be out of sight, does that begin to erode public support?”
Former White House National Security Council speechwriter Amanda Rothschild disapproved of Biden’s eventual acceptance of the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline project, contending it was to Ukraine’s detriment before Russia’s invasion. But while applauding Biden’s political, military, and economic assistance of Kyiv since then, Rothschild called for greater oversight and transparency of the taxpayer-funded aid. She referred to last week’s House Republican Foreign Affairs Committee report, which scrutinized Biden’s “accountability” in Afghanistan.
“That’s vital for ensuring that the American people trust that their money’s being spent well and that it’s a worthy effort,” Rothschild said. “And also just being firm in language and in action and not suggesting or encouraging significant territorial or other concessions to the regime.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“My hope is that some of the mistakes made at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis won’t continue in terms of demonstrating weakness in Afghanistan,” she added. “If we demonstrate weakness again in Ukraine, we could see that having implications for Taiwan.”
