Brendan Smialowski/Pool via AP
President Joe Biden, left, talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, right, as they arrive at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, March 24, 2022.
After a brutal month, there are signs that the war in Ukraine is entering a new phase. Late last week, the Russian military said that it was focusing on “the complete liberation of the Donbas,” not a wider occupation of all of Ukraine. Amid peace negotiations, Moscow agreed to reduce the intensity of its activity around the capital of Kyiv and to the north. Ukraine, for its part, proposed a 15-year pause in status negotiations on Crimea, which Russia took over in 2014, rather than any military operation over the territory. As for the Donbas, an aide to Volodymyr Zelensky said that could be determined through presidential-level negotiations with Vladimir Putin. Russia agreed to prepare for such a meeting as soon as a draft peace agreement was completed. Just the talk of a meeting between the presidents was a breakthrough.
There’s definitely a lot to be worked out: Ukrainian security guarantees and its acceptance of neutrality outside of NATO, some form of compensation to rebuild Ukraine, and the status of the Donbas region. But for whatever reason—the poor Russian military effort, low morale of Russian troops, Ukrainian recognition that they never had full control of their eastern territory—both sides are talking about peace. You don’t have to believe them unequivocally, nor must you believe this effort will succeed. But you do have to acknowledge what’s happening.
That’s a welcome development for the world, one that has already shown up in falling oil prices. But for peace talks to succeed, the adversaries need the space to negotiate their mutual interests. That’s why it was so potentially damaging for President Biden to ad-lib over the weekend about Putin, “This man cannot remain in power.”
The White House immediately tried to walk this back, saying it was not a call for regime change. Biden echoed this on Monday, insisting that he was merely “expressing my outrage … the last thing I want to do is engage in a land war or a nuclear war with Russia.”
The desire to avoid a wider war has been a pretty consistent and commendable theme in Biden’s approach to Ukraine. He has consistently rejected the opening of a no-fly zone, nixed the sale of MiGs to Poland to supply Ukraine, and held off the frankly bloodthirsty remarks of U.S. media. This is consistent with his approach to ending the war in Afghanistan, which has proven a masterstroke: Can you imagine what we’d be facing now if Putin could arm the Taliban against U.S. troops, in response to the U.S. arming Ukraine against his?
But Biden has clearly been playing both sides throughout this conflict—a dangerous game, considering the drift among the media and many liberals to see this war as part of an existential battle for democracy. The administration has expressed little desire for a diplomatic resolution of the war. It has supplied weapons to Ukraine and engaged in economic sanctions with the stated goal of weakening Russian resolve.
The administration has expressed little desire for a diplomatic resolution of the war.
Just on Tuesday, Biden met with counterparts in France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K. and “affirmed their determination to continue raising costs on Russia for its brutal attacks in Ukraine, as well as to continue supplying Ukraine with security assistance to defend itself.” Rather than a focus on ending the war, we have a stray comment that Biden would like to see Putin out of power.
Surely, most reasonable people witnessing the carnage in Ukraine would too. But the role of an ordinary observer is different from that of a president. As Michael Cohen explains, presidents make policy with their words, whether they like it or not.
The U.S. has been segregated from the diplomatic channel; peace talks this week are being held in Turkey. However, the sanctions regime, which will undoubtedly be part of those talks—isn’t the point of the sanctions to pressure Russia to stop the invasion?—are going to be more difficult to lift, after the leader who imposed them stated fairly bluntly that Russia’s leader should be removed. The sanctions are not really achieving their goals because of the exemption for energy to Europe. Bad press from “funding Putin’s butchery” has already led the U.S. to end Russian oil imports, and to try and write Russia out of the global economy, through natural gas supplies to Europe. That same dynamic could play out with negotiated sanctions relief, now with the added pressure of Biden’s statement.
Outside groups have noticed. In a letter to the administration, 13 organizations have asked the White House to back Zelensky’s assertion that “any war ends in agreement” by maximizing their diplomatic efforts. That means tying sanctions relief to the outcome of the talks, and committing to any security arrangements. “If we wish to truly support the Ukrainian people, we must be willing to support a negotiated settlement,” the organizations write.
But upon the news of Russia shifting away from Kyiv, Secretary of State Antony Blinken dismissed it as “a means by which Russia once again is trying to deflect and deceive people into thinking it’s not doing what it is doing.” Surely Russia could say the same thing about Biden’s “cannot remain in power” comment and its aftermath. A paranoid leader with nuclear weapons was just made more paranoid.
Here’s where I have to part company with my estimable colleague Bob Kuttner, who wrote last week that NATO is in a “proxy war” with Russia, and should act like it by supplying warplanes. That kind of thinking leads to offhand comments about regime change, and an escalation that could spiral out of control. As the troop movements this week exemplify, Ukraine did not in fact need warplanes for its survival. In my view, it would be wrong to give in to the emotional high pitch in the U.S. by taking actions or making statements that entrench a confrontation between Russia and the West, with humanity watching tensely. You cannot suggest a policy of “defeating Putin” without accepting the extreme risk that comes with it.
War is terrible (some would say a crime) and should be avoided at all costs. When it breaks out, all actions should be taken to end it as quickly as possible. Biden’s offhand remark isn’t fatal to this cause; the administration could take action to support a resolution. But they haven’t done so over the past month, and time is short.
