WHY
BIDEN WANTED AMERICANS TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PUTIN WAS PLANNING
The president’s diplomatic efforts may have
failed at foiling Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but they worked to build global
unity and remind Americans, post-Trump, what government is. It’s about “what’s
best for the American people, as opposed to our leaders’ personal interests,”
one senior administration official says.
BY CHRIS SMITH
FEBRUARY
24, 2022
President Joe Biden was right. His
administration issued public warnings in January that Russia was moving large
numbers of troops into position for a possible invasion of Ukraine. In the past
few weeks, as diplomacy faltered and intelligence reports showed preparations
for an attack escalating, the president has been even more explicit, declaring
clearly and repeatedly that Russian president Vladimir Putin had
decided to violently seize Ukrainian territory.
Now, with tanks rolling and bombs falling,
just as predicted, Biden very much wishes he’d been wrong. There is no
second-guessing among administration insiders, however, that the president
chose the correct strategy in speaking bluntly and often about Putin’s
intentions. They believe that calling out Russian false flag tactics slowed
down the attack’s timeline. The messaging, combined with attempts to find a
diplomatic solution, also placed blame squarely and completely where it
belongs—on Putin’s shoulders. Harsher actions, like imposing sanctions before
an invasion, would have given the Russian leader an excuse to shift
responsibility.
Biden’s public statements were also intended
to aid American efforts to forge a unified front with European allies—a task in
rebuilding trust that was made tougher because it followed four years of
blustery Trump administration divisiveness toward NATO. “In many instances we
downgraded the intelligence rating to enable us to share it with our allies and
partners, to make sure everyone’s got the same understanding of the facts on
the ground,” a senior administration official says. “So that was the strategy we
adopted from the beginning, because we believed we will be much stronger if it
isn’t just the U.S. responding. And it was important to do that not just behind
the scenes, but in what we were saying publicly. On December 7, for instance,
the president talked with Putin, and
then Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, went to the
podium right afterwards and laid out specific parts of the call. It’s about
returning government to foreign policy driven by national interests, what’s
best for the American people, as opposed to our leaders’ personal interests.”
Biden’s priority was trying to head off
bloodshed in Ukraine. He was, of course, also weighing his words and actions
with a domestic audience in mind. The president’s team is understandably loath
to talk U.S. politics in the middle of an unpredictable international crisis.
Yet the two components are necessarily intertwined: Confronting Russian
aggression is somewhat easier if Biden’s moves have solid American public
support behind them. “Definitely,” the senior adviser says. “It’s important for
the American people to understand exactly the actions the administration is
taking and the challenges we face.” And the president is well aware he is not
operating in a vacuum, with the likes of Florida Republican
senator Marco Rubio and Fox News claiming
Biden’s “weakness” has somehow invited Putin to seize Ukraine.
Just how much the broader American public
cares about what’s happening in Ukraine is subject to more debate within
Biden’s camp. One view—parallel to how Biden approached his 2020
campaign—is that while the war is inarguably an enormous human tragedy, the
attention Ukraine is drawing in Beltway and media circles is considerably
higher than it is across the rest of the country. A second perspective is that
Americans care plenty—but those concerns don’t merely take conventional shapes.
“People certainly get that this important. They care,” a Biden adviser says.
“But the reporting isn’t just about where missiles are landing. There’s a
connection being made about what this means for global inflation and the stock
market going down. And after what everyone has been through the past two years,
it just adds to the pain everyone is dealing with, the mental fatigue. This
contributes to a feeling of being stuck in the mud, regardless of whether
people agree or disagree with the president’s actions.”
With the military option for Ukraine’s defense
off the table, the president has been left with rhetorical and financial
plays. On Thursday afternoon, Biden reinforced the themes he’s been laying
out for weeks. “Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war. And now he and
his country will bear the consequences,” the president said at the White House
while announcing new freezes of Russian economic assets. “America stands up to
bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”
The situation in Ukraine is too volatile, and the stakes too
high, to focus very much on whether Biden eventually receives any deserved
political credit for how he handled the run-up to Russia’s invasion. Yet the
two elements will combine in a high-profile way next Tuesday, when the
president delivers his second State of the Union speech. Biden was expected to
focus on how the number of COVID cases is finally waning, on the bright spots
in the economy, and how his administration is tackling lingering supply chain
dysfunction and worker shortages. Those issues will likely still take up
significant space in his address to Congress. But the context for Biden’s
remarks has shifted a great deal in the past week, and new paragraphs about
Ukraine may need to be written as the president is on his way to Capitol Hill