Photo by Freepik

Biden’s Policy Towards War in Ukraine is Appropriate

By Luis Fleischman 

The War in Ukraine has eliminated the post-cold war illusion that wars can be avoidable in the future and that the danger of another world war does not exist.

Vladimir Putin intends to restore Russia’s ethos as a great world power or even empire. Thus, he dared attack Ukraine because he could. He saw in front of his eyes a divided NATO. Likewise, Germany, the most powerful country in Europe, found itself in a situation of high dependency on the Russian energy supply. Above all, Putin saw a pacifist West that would do anything to avoid a confrontation. Along these lines, the Obama and Trump Administrations’ inclination to withdraw from the world enabled Putin to annex Crimea and deepen its intervention in Syria. The road seemed to be clear for another Russian military adventure. 

At the beginning of the war, President Biden made a mistake in voicing his fears over the possibility of a Third World War. This alarmist message further emboldened Putin, who did not seem too concerned about the crippling sanctions imposed on Russia. Furthermore, Biden’s and NATO initial cautious approach prevented setting military red lines on Russia. Hysterical rejections of No-Fly zones were irrelevant since the Russian air force operations were practically nonexistent, and attitudes of countries such as Germany that initially failed to provide weaponry to Ukraine also contributed to Putin’s belligerency. 

However, contrary to Putin’s expectations, NATO is now united. Sanctions on Russia’s energy sector have intensified. The United States and other NATO allies have exponentially increased their aid to Ukraine’s war effort. 

However, Biden and NATO’s determination have faced some obstacles.   

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s public declarations that the U.S is seeking to weaken Russian military capabilities and the disclosure that American military intelligence was instrumental in sinking the Russian war flagship “Moskva” in the Black Sea generated anxiety among some of NATO allies over the possibility of further escalation. Also, sanctions on Russia caused a rise in oil prices that paradoxically increased Russia’s revenue, enabling Putin to double down on his war effort. These concerns eventually prompted French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron to support a diplomatic solution and suggest avoiding humiliating Russia. 

Macron is not alone. His statement disclosed a new division within NATO. On the one hand, there is a peace camp within NATO that includes Germany, France, and Italy. This group advocates for a cease-fire and a peace agreement with Russia. On the other hand, the United States, and countries of Eastern Europe support Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and refuse to let reward Putin for his aggression. 

The current situation is far from ideal. Russia withdrew from several areas in Ukraine, thanks to the courage of Ukrainian fighters, but then moved its war efforts to southern and eastern Ukraine. Key cities such as Mariupol surrendered after a blood bath, and now Sivierodonetsk seems to follow the same tragic path. It is not clear how well-trained Ukrainian forces are and how capable they are of resisting Russia, even with the help of Western arms (which Ukrainians are still not properly trained to use) 

Despite this situation and despite the loss of domestic popularity and the proximity of the mid-term elections in the United States, the Biden Administration seems to be determined to defeat Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.  

Early in June, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried described U.S policy and motives as follows: 

“Ukraine is the victim of aggression, Russia the aggressor. At issue for them is not merely Ukraine’s independence, but also the democratic world’s willingness to defend the American-designed “rules-based international order” from Russian President Vladimir Putin — an unapologetic authoritarian.”

 There also seems to be a determination that authoritarian global powers  

This conception suggests that the U.S strategy is not just about preventing the expansion of such military offensive to other countries must be deterred. The message also applies to China, which has backed Putin and threatens Taiwan, and thus the stability of the Asian region. Moreover, the Biden Administration, contrary to the two previous administrations, seems to realize that the decline of world democracy-supported by authoritarian states such as Russia and China- is defying an international order designed to secure peace. Modern illiberal -authoritarian states create chaos, repression, and instability. In some cases, these regimes support terrorism or look to cut alliances with unsavory rogue states.   It is enough to look at Iran, a state supporting terrorism, that has established bonds with authoritarian states in the Western Hemisphere and other regions. 

Therefore, President Biden is pursuing a policy supporting the Ukrainian effort and believes it is not yet the time to look for compromises, particularly when Russia is likely to claim the 1/5 of Ukraine that it already occupies. Let us not forget that historically Russia strengthened its status as a great power after winning the wars against Napoleon and its former ally, Nazi Germany. If Russia wins another war, the Putinist anti-democratic wave will expand globally stronger than ever.  As Yale historian Timothy Snyder pointed out in a recent New York Times column “If Russia wins in Ukraine, it won’t be just the destruction of democracy by force, though that is bad enough. It will be a demoralization for democracies everywhere”. I would add also that democracies, which are already in retreat, will further retreat and the whole doctrine of human rights established after World War II will cease to be relevant.  Therefore, Russia should not be allowed to win. 

A great victory for the Biden Administration approach was the recent NATO meeting, where the alliance declared Russia a primary adversary and even refreshed its dormant post-cold war spirit by going further and declaring China, a Russian ally, to be a “strategic challenge”.  Likewise, Sweden and Finland, which have historically abstained from joining NATO, are on the path to joining the organization. NATO also announced the deployment of thousands of additional new troops in eight countries that face the East.  NATO seems to be heading in the direction of being a protector of the liberal-democratic world transcending the narrow cold-war definition of the group as being simply a north-Atlantic alliance. 

To conclude, I would add that the diplomatic path must not be shut down. Forcing a diplomatic solution now would lead to an outright surrender. This is not good for Ukraine, for the international order, or for peace and democracy. The Biden Administration policy, for the time being, is appropriate, but options must be left open if circumstances change.

About Luis Fleischman

Luis Fleischman is a professor of Sociology at Palm Beach State College, the co-founder of the think-tank the Palm Beach Center for Democracy and Policy Research. He is also the author of “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Threat to U.S. Security,” and the author of the book, “The Middle East Riddle: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Light of Political and Social Transformations in the Arab World,” to be published by New Academia.”