Russia Hawks and the 'Biden Problem'

There is no benefit in pretending that the U.S. will fight for a country that it will not, in fact, fight to defend.

Kori Schake’s indictment of Biden on Russia and Ukraine leaves a lot to be desired:

The real problem in administration policy is President Biden. The insular nature of his decision-making, including his reliance on like-minded advisers, lacks rigorous thinking and fuels a kind of arrogance that can lead to unforced errors. His casual suggestion last month that “a minor incursion” by Russia might not draw a tough response required mopping up by the administration. It also drew a bitter rebuke from Ukraine’s president. Most egregiously, Mr. Biden let Russia know it need not fear the prospect of U.S. troops fighting to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine and postwar order, saying publicly that “there is not going to be any American forces moving into Ukraine.”

These criticisms aren’t very compelling. Saying that the U.S. and allied response to Russian military action would be calibrated according to how significant it was is not an error, unforced or otherwise. It makes sense that threatened punitive measures should fit the relevant offense. Sending a few hundred troops across the border merits a different, lesser response than if the Russians invaded in the tens of thousands. Reinforcing separatists should be treated differently from a full-scale invasion and regime change operation. Biden is essentially being upbraided for being honest about what is likely to happen in different scenarios, as if there were some advantage to be gained from pretending that any Russian action would trigger maximal sanctions. Depending on the severity and scale of Russian military action, if there is any, the U.S. response should vary accordingly.