President Joe Biden finds himself in the complicated position of trying to project strength against Russia while also avoiding new military entanglements.
Biden’s political difficulty was on display in the aftermath of his video meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, billed as a diplomatic face-off in which the leader of the free world was supposed to deter his counterpart at the Kremlin from an invasion of Ukraine.
“President Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy,” said a readout of the meeting sent out by the White House. The consequences for Putin were more ambiguous: “The U.S. and our Allies would respond with strong economic and other measures in the event of military escalation.”
WHITE HOUSE: UKRAINE ‘IS NOT A COMPARABLE SITUATION’ TO AFGHANISTAN
While sanctions and other acts of economic retribution were always likely in the event of a Russian incursion into Ukraine, the word “other” stood out as possibly implying, but definitely not asserting, a military option.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan was promptly challenged on this point when he spoke at the White House daily press briefing Tuesday. “What are those ‘other’ measures that the United States is prepared to take?” asked one reporter. Sullivan mentioned “both the supply and provision of additional materiel, as well as the additional deployment of assets and capabilities.”
Another reporter asked point-blank, “So, is that something the American public should be bracing for — the possibility of seeing American troops on the ground in that region in the coming weeks and months if Vladimir Putin goes through with this?”
“I don’t know if I would say ‘bracing for’ since we currently have rotational deployments in the Baltics,” Sullivan replied. “We conduct exercises on a regular basis in both Poland and Romania. The presence of American military service members in rotational fashion in these countries is not something new.”
But Sullivan took pains to cast the administration’s response as tough, even in comparison to that of former President Barack Obama during the annexation of Crimea when Biden was vice president.
“I will look you in the eye and tell you, as President Biden looked President Putin in the eye and told him today, that things we did not do in 2014, we are prepared to do now,” Sullivan said in response to a reporter’s question about why sanctions would work now when they failed to deter Russia then.
The extent to which this might involve the projection of military might was left vague, though Sullivan did supply some details. “We would provide additional defensive materiel to the Ukrainians above and beyond that which we are already providing,” he said. “And we would fortify our NATO allies on the eastern flank with additional capabilities in response to such an escalation.”
Much of the ambiguity, he insisted, was strategic. “Now, in terms of the specifics, we would prefer to communicate that directly to the Russians, to not negotiate in public, to not telegraph our punches,” Sullivan said. “But we are laying out for the Russians in some detail the types of measures that we have in mind.” European allies, he added, are at “a level of deep specificity” with U.S. plans. He concluded, “But I think it is not profitable for us to lay out the specifics of it standing here at this podium today.”
Yet Biden’s political commitments, as well as American capacity and geopolitical realities, also shape his options. As Biden communicated U.S. disapproval of Russian violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty, Putin reiterated his opposition to the country joining NATO or becoming the location for offensive weapons that could conceivably threaten Moscow.
Biden campaigned on shrinking the U.S. military footprint abroad at the same time he pledged to respond to China, Russia, and various terrorist threats. The dilemma was evident in Afghanistan and could again emerge in Taiwan. Biden can say that all options are on the table, but some of his campaign promises effectively rule them out in a nonemergency context.
This remains true even though Democratic attitudes toward Russia hardened after the 2016 election of former President Donald Trump, who was investigated for collusion with Russian electoral interference in the campaign against Hillary Clinton and was impeached for delaying military aid to Ukraine while inquiring about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in the country. Trump was acquitted by the Senate, and no evidence of 2016 collusion was established in the Trump-Russia special counsel investigation.
Democrats have continued to warn against Russian disinformation. Still, Biden could find himself limited to economic measures and more symbolic gestures.
“Obviously, invading Ukraine would be an aggressive act,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. Whether they would revisit decisions such as waiving sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in response to such aggression, however, was less clear.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“The gas is not currently flowing through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which means it’s not operating, which means that it’s not leverage for Putin,” Sullivan told reporters. “If Vladimir Putin wants to see gas flow through the pipeline, he may not want to take the risk of invading Ukraine.”
Sullivan added that the pipeline, the U.S. acceptance of which was widely panned as favorable to Russia, was actually “leverage for the West.”
