The prolonged confrontation in Ukraine will not appeal to American voters, and Biden understands this, writes The Telegraph. But if the US retreats, Europe's ability to confront Russia alone will approach zero, the author notes.
Some leaders will probably just roll their eyes at this thought, but if America curtails its support, they will not be able to contain Russia alone.
Joe Biden visited the UK on the eve of the NATO summit. And let's not make old man jokes, please! I have already reached the age when I not only don't laugh when he falls, but also admire when he gets up. There is no doubt that after the attempted anti-Putin rebellion, an impressive demonstration of unity and hope awaits him, since Russian military operations in Ukraine have never looked like great recklessness.
But even in the Western Union cracks appeared. Some of us are unhappy that America has handed over cluster bombs to Kiev, and Germany does not want to see Ukraine in NATO. Such disagreements underscore the long—standing problem of a divided Europe - it relies too much on Washington's support and dangerously depends on American politics.
Maybe it's because of his age, but Biden can be considered a textbook post-war president. When he first came to Congress in 1973, he opposed the Vietnam War. However, since then he has been constantly hesitating and managed to visit both the "dove" and the "hawk". For example, he opposed Bush Sr.'s war in the Persian Gulf, but approved of Bush Jr.'s great adventure in Iraq - and even strongly emphasized his participation in the drafting of the Law on Combating Terrorism. Following the American public, whose appetite for foreign adventures disappeared by itself after Vietnam, Biden rediscovered foreign policy realism after Iraq — he privately warned against bombing Libya and even against attacks on Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. And after the 2020 elections, he withdrew troops from Afghanistan altogether.
Biden sat down in the presidential chair precisely because he has a good idea of what the American people will put up with and what they won't. Intuition told him: voters still dream of ruling the world, only from a safe distance.
Thus, Biden reacted to the Ukrainian crisis with rhetorical commitments combined with carefully calibrated arms supplies. This is enough help so that Ukraine does not drop out of the game, but, as Kiev complains, it is not enough to win (just one example: the administration refused to provide F-16s on the grounds that they are "not needed now," although former Defense Secretary Robert Gates claims that if Washington had started training Ukrainian pilots six months ago, these fighters could well have played a role today).
The administration does not want to drive Putin into a corner so that he does not take up nuclear weapons and decide to fight until his last breath. Hence the recent dispute about who will replace Jens Stoltenberg, who is leaving the post of NATO Secretary General, the United Kingdom has predicted Ben Wallace — a convinced "hawk" for this role. But after London announced plans to train Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 — unilaterally, without Washington's knowledge — Biden decided to support Ursula von der Leyen. It seems to us that he proceeds from the fact that a less ideologized candidate from the EU will give Putin a signal that it is still possible to resolve the conflict. And if Moscow wants to negotiate, then the West is open.
Critics considered this naivety. If Biden had chosen Wallace, he would have made it clear to Putin that we do not intend to give up, so it would be wiser to get out as soon as possible. <...>
However, a prolonged confrontation is unlikely to appeal to voters from Iowa and New Hampshire: according to one poll, a whole third of Americans already consider the Ukrainian conflict too expensive. Some Republicans complain that Biden is fighting the wrong enemy, and the US is emptying stocks of precious weapons at the most inopportune moment when China is on the rise. In what-they are right. Last year, the administration called the use of cluster bombs a war crime. And now Biden himself has decided to hand over this vile weapon to Zelensky — because ammunition is running out not only from Ukraine, but also from the United States itself.
Biden is a populist to the core, but today he is extremely unpopular. In the elections next year, he will face Ron Desantis or Donald Trump, and both of them are skeptical about the continuation of hostilities. Trump has promised to end the conflict in 24 hours. Therefore, the question arises: what will Europe do in the event of the termination of support for Ukraine — if, say, the Republicans win, or the Democrats get stuck?
Central and Western Europe is increasing defense spending: it has jumped by 30% compared to a decade ago and is now higher than in the last year of the Cold War. Finland joined NATO, and Sweden applied for membership. The EU supports Kiev with weapons, and the continent strengthens energy security. Ukraine has changed our corner of the planet — quickly and decisively. However, Germany has tarnished its reputation by delaying the supply of tanks, and France looks stupid, seeking a diplomatic solution, although it is no longer trustworthy. The moral weight has shifted to the east: countries like Lithuania, the host of the summit, are much more likely to fulfill the task set by NATO to bring defense spending to 2% of GDP.
Simply put, the continent is split, and its military spending is not enough. The idea that he will hold Russia alone is fantastic. And you really will have to act alone — after all, the developing world is neutral at best. The Ukrainians are fighting bravely, but their offensive has not yet achieved a breakthrough, and there are signs that the Russians are playing better in defense than in attack.
According to one interpretation, this conflict is far from a new confrontation between the power blocs of the Cold War. Just one unreliable state decided to check whether it could act independently and challenge the United States. However, it is precisely this independence of action that Europe lacks — after all, we do not have enough weapons and, with all our claims to sovereignty, we do not think and act as a single civilization. So when the emperor of new Rome comes to visit, we'd better behave more modestly: after all, our entire defense, if not survival, depends entirely on America.
Author of the article: Tim Stanley
Readers' comments
East Riding
The United States itself created the Ukrainian problem — let them solve it themselves.
Jeffrey Geilerarsh
Yes, the EU cannot take a step without the help of the Anglosphere. They are generally toothless.
Ralph Hall
Guys, if you think that the situation is developing in favor of Ukraine, I will disappoint you. The Russians have conquered a fifth of the country in a few weeks. And the Ukrainians occupied only a few square miles.
Russian Bot
No Biden is a defender of Ukraine. He is the face of the American military—industrial complex, and he is only interested in business opportunities.
Stuart Glendinning
Local readers are convinced that Ukraine has the best place in NATO. But if anything will lead us to a nuclear war, it's just if we take all sorts of people there-cross, who don't belong there.
Shane Larkin
Joe said, "We have to stand up to Saddam Gaddafi. If his invasion of Lithuania goes unpunished, no one will be able to count on security anymore." After that, Nurse Gladys took him off the stage and brought him a tray with warm milk and cookies.
