Joe Biden has made a career of saying asinine things. So, as with Donald Trump’s similar proclivity, we tend to become inured to it. But when the president of the United States says something, no matter who the president of the United States is, it matters. A lot.
President Biden’s open acknowledgment that Russia could conduct a “minor incursion” into Ukraine with minimal risk has mattered. A lot.
It was remarkable on Sunday to read the New York Times’ coverage of Russia’s escalating troop build-up at strategic points along the Ukrainian border. For example, in reporting that was rich in sources on what top Biden administration national-security officials are saying about Russian strongman Vladimir Putin’s intentions, the paper observes:
Whether Mr. Putin decides to go through with a maximalist approach or a more scaled-down version is the question with which American, European and Ukrainian officials are all grappling.
The Times report also includes analyses by “Western intelligence officials” who have been monitoring “chatter” regarding the thinking of military leaders in Moscow. The conclusion is that an invasion is imminent, with alternative scenarios regarding its scope still under consideration:
European officials, examining the same evidence [that Biden officials are reviewing] suggest that Mr. Putin could start smaller and test the reaction — with cyberattacks to paralyze Ukraine’s electric grid and communications, an invasion limited to the Russian-speaking territory in eastern Ukraine or an effort to cut the country in half, roughly along the Dnieper River. American officials have acknowledged the possibility, especially if Mr. Putin wants to see if a smaller military action would create more divisions within Europe over whether to impose the most crushing economic sanctions.
Western intelligence officials also say that they have picked up chatter suggesting Russian military leaders are confident they could take Ukraine in a blitzkrieg attack, but worry that they may not be able to hold on to the country, especially if the invasion sets off a significant insurgency. That has prompted speculation inside the NATO alliance that Mr. Putin might invade, seek to change the Ukrainian government and then partly withdraw his forces.
And this:
European officials tend to be more skeptical that Mr. Putin would try to take the country in a large-scale invasion. Some believe that he would seek to take the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, where a grinding proxy war has been underway since 2014. Another theory is that Mr. Putin could expand that operation in an effort to annex all of eastern Ukraine, up to the Dnieper River.
Under that latter theory, it is postulated, Russian forces would so “decimate” Ukrainian troops that resistance in the West of the country (where opposition to Russia is strongest) could collapse, such that the whole of Ukraine would come under Russian domination in short order.
What is remarkable about all this is how expectations have shifted. Until recently, while many judged it probable that Putin would invade Ukraine, there was more public discussion about steps that could be taken to get Moscow to stand down. But then President Biden was explicit in his logorrheic January 19 press conference that a “minor incursion” by Russia into Ukraine would not be met by a meaningful Western response. Biden added, as if he were a pundit rather than the president, “My guess is he [i.e., Putin] will move in. He has to do something.”
Since then, Russia’s invasion force has rapidly expanded. No longer is the discussion in Washington and Europe about stopping Putin. Now, the operating assumption of all the important players is that an invasion is a foregone conclusion. The only remaining question is whether Moscow will swallow its neighbor (and former Soviet satellite) in one bite, or if he’ll start small and then gauge how quickly to take more based on American and NATO reaction, as well as the degree of Ukrainian resistance.
Obviously, Biden’s notoriously poor judgment is not the only reason this is happening. But what a costly blunder his remarks are proving to be.