His Russia–Ukraine stumbles are the product of somebody who spent decades in a job where off-the-cuff statements have no consequences.
His Russia–Ukraine stumbles are the product of somebody who spent decades in a job where off-the-cuff statements have no consequences.
O ver the course of the Ukraine–Russia conflict, President Biden has made a number of reckless statements that have undermined or confused American foreign policy. A popular explanation among critics has been that his propensity to make such statements reflects his being gaffe-prone in general and also that he is undergoing an age-driven mental decline. But another explanation is equally likely: He is not being as careful about what he says because his formidable political experience was as a senator, a position in which off-the-cuff statements do not matter as much.
The president’s extemporaneous comments repeatedly have created problems for his administration.
In a January news conference during the run-up to the invasion, Biden talked about the potential response to an offensive by Vladimir Putin and speculated, “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, etc.”
This created uncertainty about the resolve of NATO countries to hold Putin accountable, and top White House officials scrambled to do cleanup.
Last month, during a mostly restrained speech in Poland, Biden went off-script and added the line, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
The statement reverberated around the world, as it appeared that the president of the United States was calling for regime change, which would represent a significant escalation in the conflict.
This statement, too, had to be walked back so the White House could tamp down the idea that the U.S. was pushing for Putin’s ouster.
Then there has been the loose talk around war crimes.
Last month, after the conclusion of an event at the White House, Biden initially responded “no” when a reporter asked if he thought Putin was a war criminal, and walked away. But then he made his way back to the reporter and said, “Oh, I think he is a war criminal.”
After the horrific images of Bucha emerged, Biden reiterated the “war criminal” charge and went a step further by calling for putting Putin on trial for war crimes.
Many defenders of Biden have argued that Putin is a war criminal and that he should be out of power. But there is an important distinction between a pundit making that argument and the president.
Biden is trying to walk a tightrope by ratcheting up the pressure against Putin on one hand, and by showing restraint in the U.S. response so as to avoid direct military engagement with Russia. So far, the U.S. has joined NATO countries in imposing sanctions and arming Ukraine, but has stopped short of imposing a no-fly zone or supplying airplanes. But the rhetoric should match that policy. And it becomes much harder to communicate the need for restraint when the president is saying Putin needs to be removed from power and put on trial as a war criminal.
The problem is, in making his statements, Biden is behaving much like a pundit. The “minor incursion” comment is something you’d expect from a policy analyst speculating as to what the NATO response might look like, depending on a range of possible Russian actions. Arguing that Putin needs to go is something one would see on an op-ed page. The call for a war-crimes trial would be perfectly routine in the context of a cable-news panel.
What’s important to remember about Biden is the huge bulk of his political experience — 36 years — was spent as a senator, a time of which he served as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. As senator, he would routinely gaggle with reporters in the halls of Capitol Hill and be a regular guest on television news shows. And as a senator who does not directly make policy, there is a lot of leeway for engaging in speculation while tossing out various ideas. As an example, in 2006, he touted a plan to decentralize Iraq into three ethnic and religious regions. It was debated among the D.C. foreign-policy community but was not treated as representative of U.S. policy, because it was not.
When Biden speaks as president, however, his words are taken as the policy of the U.S. government. It seems he has not adjusted to that reality.