Friends, I jest. Our glorious leader does seem to be minimally aware that the current President of Russia is Vladimir Putin. In fact, he dislikes Putin almost as much as he dislikes Donald Trump, and that's saying something! My latest article tackles Biden's recent spate of gaffes while on his European tour, and I suggest that an American leader this sloppy in his implementation of U.S. foreign policy hasn't been seen since...well, ever. Sure, the media like to claim that Trump was a loose cannon, but how many countries did Russia invade while Trump was in charge? We all know the answer to that one.
Biden Unfit to Lead in this Perilous
Moment
By no means are
Americans in agreement about the degree to which we should support
Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Some believe we should stay well
out of it, while others favor much more robust assistance to the
Ukrainian people. A growing and vocal minority believes that the time
has come to intervene directly in the conflict, despite the inherent
risk of World War III, up to and including nuclear war.
Hopefully,
there is one thing that Americans and people throughout the West can
agree on: now is the time to consider our actions and words extremely
carefully, and to make thoughtful, rational choices and to articulate
our goals with absolute precision. After all, a Russian misreading of
our intentions could produce direct confrontation between Russian and
American forces, which is, at this stage, an outcome which most
Americans are still eager to avoid.
Unfortunately, Joe Biden is President of the United States. His
European tour has so far yielded a litany of rhetorical blunders any
of which, in itself, could destabilize U.S.-Russian relations, could
produce unintended and undesirable escalation on the Russian side, or
could simply exasperate our allies and thus damage the unity of NATO
as it faces down Russian aggression.
First,
Biden declared that, if the Russians used chemical weapons in
Ukraine, we would respond “in
kind”.
U.S. officials had to walk back that statement, since, of course, the
U.S. (theoretically) has no chemical weapons, and we would be
prohibited by international law from ever
using them if we did.
Next,
Biden told U.S. troops in Poland that they would personally observe
the courage of the Ukrainian people “when
you're there”.
Many understandably took this to mean that Biden foresaw the
deployment of U.S. forces inside
Ukraine.
American policy, however, is that, while we support Ukraine's
struggle and intend to give weapons to the Ukrainian military, we
will not intervene militarily ourselves. Biden's advisors thus had to
explain that, in fact, Biden did not mean what he appears to have
said.
Lastly,
Biden declared in a fiery speech that Russian President Putin “cannot
remain in power”.
The Russians, and many in the West, took this as a direct call for
regime change, which, once again, is a direct contradiction of U.S.
policy, which does not seek to alter Russia's government or infringe
on its sovereignty, but only to dissuade it from current and future
aggression.
Biden, of course, has a history of making gaffes and blunders.
Presumably, therefore, many world leaders, including those in Russia,
are inclined to shrug off these clumsy remarks as the ravings of a
buffoon, whose mental acuity is simply way overtaxed by the demands
of the presidency. At least, this is the best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that Biden's confrontational,
interventionist rhetoric will be taken seriously – that it will be
assumed that Biden is telegraphing a clear intention to escalate U.S.
involvement in Ukraine and eventually to confront Russia directly on
a battlefield of his choosing, perhaps after U.S. and Western public
opinion has been adequately prepared by rousing Russophobic speeches
like the ones he is now delivering.
Let us reflect, briefly, on the possibility that Biden's statements
should be taken seriously, and do reflect his intentions, even if he
did not mean to tip his hand so blatantly. What might be the
consequences of a decision at the highest levels of the U.S.
government to “take on” Putin's Russia?
For
one thing, the more America confronts Russia, the more we risk World
War III and nuclear combat, which in turn means, as the hazards
multiply, the unity of NATO is likely to fracture. NATO is currently
united around a strategy which involves redeploying some NATO forces
eastwards, but not into Ukraine; sending Ukraine weapons of moderate
effectiveness, but not other weapons which might provoke Russia; and
imposing sanctions on Russia, but not energy-related sanctions that
could damage Europe's economy. That is the most
unity that NATO and the West have yet been able to muster. Biden's
provocative statements, and perhaps his aggressive intentions,
threaten that fragile consensus and could fracture the Western
alliance altogether.
The bigger risk, though, is that Russia will take Biden seriously.
If so, Russia may conclude that, before Biden gets the opportunity to
thrust American military forces into Ukraine, or to engineer an
anti-Putin coup, it had better gird its loins and complete the
destruction of Ukraine's military and the occupation of its
territory. Russia might decide that the urgent completion of these
tasks, moreover, requires it to use weapons of mass destruction to
neutralize enemy forces. Were that to happen, then the West is
already committed to inflicting dire (although completely
unspecified) consequences on Russia – consequences that undoubtedly
would bring us closer to World War III that at any time since the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
This,
then, is the mess that Joe Biden has got us into. The irony is that
he ran for president as a man who could bring experience, maturity,
and sound judgment back
into the White House. Instead, in the past few days he has been
modeling just the kind of loose talk and sloppy execution of
diplomacy and strategy that, historically, engenders
misunderstandings, war, and epic tragedy.
Sadly, it's too late to change presidents in the midst of this
terrible crisis. It may not be too late, however, to ask Joe Biden
politely to go back to his basement where he belongs – and where
he's unlikely, or at least less likely, to get us all killed.
Dr.
Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred
and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com.
He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
And here it is at American Greatness:
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/29/biden-is-unfit-to-lead-in-this-perilous-moment/
***
In other news, Elon Musk is suggesting that Twitter has worn out its welcome as the digital "public square", and we need a new social media platform that genuinely embraces free speech. DJT is trying to provide that in "Truth Social", of course, but so far its functionality leaves a lot to be desired. Wouldn't it be nice to see Musk himself get into the social media game?
https://www.outkick.com/elon-musk-suggests-a-new-platform-is-needed-amid-twitter-free-speech-concerns/
Lastly, I applaud Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for pursuing a genuinely neutral course in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Orban, almost alone of Western leaders, has resisted the siren song of Russia-bashing. When the ICBMs start to fly, maybe Putin will give Budapest a pass? That would be nice -- it's a lovely city.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/27/hungarian_pm_viktor_organ_hungary_is_on_hungarys_side_147389.html
