Putin is encouraged by Biden’s weakness

US President Joe Biden. Picture: AFP

How much responsibility does US President Joe Biden bear for the unspeakable tragedy that is now unfolding across Ukraine?

First, of course, the man fully responsible for what Russia is doing in Ukraine is Vladimir Putin. Geoffrey Robertson is right to label Putin a war criminal. Mat­ernity hospitals, monasteries sheltering civilians, lines of refugees fleeing the violence, civilian neighbourhoods are routinely bombed. The Ukrainian government accuses Moscow of using chemical weapons – phosphorus bombs – in eastern Ukraine. Whole cities are laid waste. People are beginning to face starvation and death by cold. Millions have fled Ukraine. And there is no justification for any of it.

But it is also right to interrogate and judge the effectiveness of Biden in first preventing the war and, second, responding to it as effectively as possible. The plain truth is that Biden has been an ineffective and poor leader.

I don’t demonise Biden. He is plainly a good man doing his best. But he is 20 years past his own best, and even then he was never really presidential material. His administration has its good and bad points, and he is by no means the worst that you could imagine for America right now. But, still, his leadership on Ukraine has been feeble, confused and often counter-productive.

It’s undeniable that Biden was ineffective in deterring Putin from invading Ukraine. Maybe even Ronald Reagan would have failed in that task, but Biden has not led like Reagan. Before the invasion, Biden reduced the flow of weapons to Ukraine. It is nonsense to claim that in any circumstance Ukraine posed a threat to Russia. The willingness of some in the West to offer excuses for Putin is inexplicable, certainly beyond the operations of reason. Nonetheless, Biden’s team convinced themselves that arming Ukraine to resist Russian aggression would be provocative and not serve the cause of peace. In truth, weakness is more provocative than strength.

Putin may have invaded no matter what. But the logic of all deterrence is the same – to raise the cost to any aggressor so high either that victory is not assured or that the cost is simply too great. Nothing would have deterred Putin more than the presence of powerful weapons in Ukraine.

Similarly, NATO gave in to Putin’s aggression by withdrawing all its troops that were training Ukrainians.

Third, Biden lifted sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that bypassed Ukraine and symbolised European dependence on Russian energy.

Then there was that calamitous press conference in which Biden said he thought Putin would have to do something on Ukraine – that is, make some military move – and that a minor incursion by Russia might draw only a mild US response. Biden’s characteristic misstatement was quickly corrected by the White House, but the message to the Russians was one of feebleness and lack of presidential resolve.

Two other pre-invasion Biden moves encouraged the Russians. On his first day in office, Biden cancelled the Keystone energy pipeline from Canada to the US. This was one of a wide range of moves, continuing today, from the Biden administration to discourage US oil and gas explor­ation and production.

Yet the truth is that Western economies, the US and Europe, remain dependent on oil and gas, especially gas. The US is begging Saudi Arabia and the other Middle East oil kingdoms, and even Venezuela, to increase their oil and gas output to make up for Russian energy they want everyone to sanction, while discouraging US production of oil and gas.

That’s a crazy contradiction. It is also an inconvenient truth that the US had achieved energy independence under Donald Trump and this had strategic consequences. Putin clearly factored in US and European energy import dependence as part of his calculus on Western resolve. He may have miscalculated. If so, he was encouraged by Biden’s actions.

The catastrophic mishandling of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan also helped Putin come to his decision. Barack Obama famously drew a red line in Syria, which he then abandoned. The Chinese took the lesson and extended their control and militarisation of the South China Sea, rightly predicting they would get little or no pushback from Obama.

Both Biden and the Europeans together did not communicate how severe the sanctions against Russia would be. That, too, fed into Putin’s miscalculation.

What about since the invasion? Biden gets reasonably good marks on the strength of sanctions. But the people who real­ly engineered this are the unbelievably heroic Ukrainians. Public opinion around the world, or wherever there is a free media, has been shocked and outraged by the daily scenes of Russian atrocities in Ukraine. It’s not really evident that Biden led much here. Nonetheless, he deserves reasonable credit for at least presiding over a tough sanctions regime.

However, Biden has taken a series of other actions that have helped the Russians. Biden personally vetoed the Polish offer to donate 28 Soviet-built MiG fighter jets to the Ukrainian air force which, miraculously, is still contesting the air against the Russians. But if the West, including Australia, is giving lethal weapons to the Ukrainians, what on earth is wrong with giving conventional aircraft to their air force? Long Russian tank columns are especially vulnerable to strikes from the air, though of course such columns contain elements of air defence systems of their own. In this episode Biden looks as though he is willing to give the Ukrainians just enough help to ensure they fail heroically. Biden seemed to be scared of Russian reaction if the Ukrainians got Polish jets. So Putin was able to deter Biden.

Similarly, Putin has made a number of nuclear threats and these have not earned any response of consequence from the White House at all. But all deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, requires that your enemy know you are willing and able to engage in military conflict if absolutely necessary.

Putin could come to the view that if he used the smallest tactical nuclear weapon, and it didn’t strike Americans directly, he would face only further economic sanctions, not actual retaliation. If Putin arrives at that view, it makes the battlefield use of a tactical nuclear weapon more likely. And that changes the world forever. Weakness is provocative.

Putin seems well able to deter Biden. Biden doesn’t seem able to deter Putin. Biden projects, as well as his personal qualities of decency, a weakness for vacillation, irresolution, uncertainty and sometimes incoherence.

That, too, contributes to Ukraine’s tragedy.