With the growing crisis between Russia and the West around Ukraine’s feuding borders, only a clear military option can make Joe Biden take the lead that Vladimir Putin has achieved since leaving.
The problem is more or less obvious: escalating a conflict that was intramural Ukrainians and now involves all of Europe to what the American called the risk of a world war.
It’s a tactical node. In this brewing conflict, either one side is lying or is deeply wrong about the adversary’s intentions. This is perhaps the biggest risk that the so-called world peace runs: something could come out of the light and smoke show now underway.
It certainly sucks to see an American president stammer out words about taking on the world’s other dominant nuclear power.
But it’s even worse if you’re Ukrainian, of course. Biden is shattering the country’s already bad reputation as a place of business by repeating every day that an invasion is imminent from Moscow.
She is? Technically, what Putin has done in the last three months is to show the world that he can act quite harmfully to assert his interests.
No one is in the president’s head to know, but there would be little logic in acting. One of the central elements of any operation, the movement of armored vehicles and tanks, would be the initial focus of dangers for Russian intentions.
The Ukrainians are equipped with American anti-tank missiles, and they could be work in this area.
More importantly, there is no clarity about the US. Harsh, crippling sanctions have been a constant in Russian life since the Crimea.
They got in the way, but they didn’t kill the country. The only language that would be heard is military: invade and we will provide air support, or launch missile barrages, to support the Ukrainians.
Biden will not do that. The average American voter, and the baleful midterms for Democrats are there, would not support the risk of a world war by people indistinguishable in their eyes from Russians.
That’s good, of course, no one wants to see another horse of the Apocalypse loose around. But it also prolongs the situation, with the West screaming that Putin is going to invade and the increasingly aggressive Russian, denying the intention while assembling a formidable force.
And the prolonged situation can always degenerate into errors that lead to accidents, which in themselves evolve into escalations. Just read the history of the First World War, with all the difference in context there is.
As a tactic to deter Putin, announcing every day an invasion that doesn’t come or a “false flag” operation that no one knows who conceived, seems to be a very considerable source of stress for the US president.
The biggest risk, and consequent fear, for the Russians in this crisis is if the US and NATO have an effective counterattack plan in case things get out of hand.
The most signal Washington gives is for now symbolic, with some B-52s dropping in the UK, other troops sent to Poland. Next to the Russian drive, it is still pale.
Again: a clash is all it takes to change everything. This could happen in a maneuver in the Black Sea, in Belarus.
But for now, what we have is a mastery of the situation on the part of Putin. Therefore, the hypothesis that he extends the dynamics of the crisis to the maximum, ending the day with reason for not having invaded his neighbor after all, is quite feasible — although there is a risk of obvious credibility erosion if he continues without concessions.
Biden’s self-imposed trap seems more severe. If you keep the gun in the holster and talk thick, you’re weak. Talk of him saying that he will not pick up Americans from Ukraine in the event of war, a sort of belated reaction to the Afghan disaster, shows how confused the American is. If he decides to actually do something, he risks more than his country’s reputation.
It may be up to cornered Europe to try to regain leadership, so far with Emmanuel Macron’s anemia and Boris Johnson’s turmoil. The crisis follows.
