President Joe Biden’s press conference on Wednesday was meant to show that his administration is effectively managing a cornucopia of challenges.
One top challenge is the Russian troop presence around Ukraine’s borders, which is only increasing by the day. The president, however, caused 12 hours of outrage in the commentariat when he seemed to imply that NATO itself hasn’t come to a common agreement on what to do in the event of a Russian invasion: “There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happens, the degree to which they’re able to go.” Biden also suggested a “minimal incursion” by Russia would meet a less serious Western sanctions response.
The administration quickly had to clean up Biden’s remarks. White House press secretary Jen Psaki reiterated that Washington and its allies were, in fact, ready to impose a coordinated response. Biden then gave his own clarification: If Russian forces cross the border into Ukraine, they “will be met with a severe and coordinated economic response.”
Biden’s critics were unconvinced. Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, blamed Biden for exposing the West’s “potential disunity” on Russia.
One problem?
Nothing that Biden said was inaccurate.
There is disunity in the West about how to respond to Russia in the event of a military incursion into Ukraine. Indeed, there is disunity in the West about Russia policy in general. There is nothing new about this, and the monthslong drama in the Russia-Ukraine border area is, if anything, making the disunity more obvious. There are legitimate differences of opinion on how to deal with Russia, which (despite being a shell of its former Soviet self) continues to be a major power in Europe.
The United Kingdom, the Baltic states, and Poland, for instance, are by the far most hawkish of the bunch, with the British sending 2,000 anti-tank weapons to the Ukrainian army. This effort is designed to ensure Kyiv can at least elicit some pain on a superior Russian army. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have requested Washington’s approval to transfer U.S.-made weapons, such as anti-armor missiles, to the Ukrainians as well (the State Department eventually granted the request after it was leaked to the media).
Germany, however, isn’t as aggressive and, in fact, continues to block the transfer of weapons to Kyiv through NATO procurement channels.
Berlin, both under former Chancellor Angela Merkel and the current coalition government under Olaf Scholz, has never bought into the idea that pumping more arms into a conflict will help the parties come closer to resolving it. Germany also has other considerations in mind; after years of going to bat for the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, Berlin would like to avoid adopting energy-related sanctions on the Russians if it can. The German government itself is even fragmented about whether to connect Nord Stream 2 with the Ukraine issue. Some, such as Defense Minister Christine Labrecht, would rather have the two be kept at a distance, whereas Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has been transparent about what her recommendation would be if Putin ordered another invasion: Put the pipeline out of operation.
Then there’s France, whose independent-minded president, Emmanuel Macron, would prefer the European Union take the lead on a resolution. If Europe’s security order is being discussed, Macron reasons, then Europe should be at the head of the table, not a secondary player merely consulted by Washington. It’s not an entirely unreasonable position from Macron, who has devoted the last five years of his presidency preaching about the necessity of the continent doing more for itself.
So, if you’re mad at Biden for accidentally exposing the truth, don’t be. The truth was already exposed.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
