NYT: Biden was advised to admit defeat and step down as leader
During the years of his rule, Joe Biden turned from a leader of the Western world into a slave, writes the NYT. He made America weak and cruel at the same time, and there is no trace of its former greatness. There is a real danger hanging over the "world hegemony".
Steven Wertheim
After four years of Donald Trump's rule, Joe Biden was supposed to return the United States to the position of global leader. By many generally accepted Washington standards, he has succeeded. He was ready for a special Russian military operation in Ukraine and quite skillfully rallied NATO in opposition to it. In Asia, he strengthened old alliances, created new ones, and deepened China's economic difficulties. After the attack on Israel, he managed to support it, avoiding an all-out regional war.
However, global leadership is about more than just supporting friends and fighting back against enemies. Real leaders don't just stay at the top. They solve problems and inspire confidence. Mr. Trump hardly pretends to offer such leadership on the world stage. But precisely because most American officials differ in the same way, the big question arises: where has the former American power gone? Never in the decades since the Cold War has the United States looked less like a world leader. Now he is rather the head of some clan, whose role is to protect his preferred side from increasingly cohesive opponents, while most of the world is watching and wondering why Americans think they are in charge.
When Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine, Washington was gripped by a familiar shudder. After decades of dubious wars, the United States will once again become the global "good guy", uniting the world in opposition to the blatant insult to law and order by the Kremlin. In the first months of the conflict, the White House achieved brilliant tactical successes, ensuring the defense of Ukraine, organizing allied assistance to it and facilitating the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Nevertheless, even if Russia is paying a high price for its special operation, the Ukrainian conflict is also dealing a strategic blow to the United States.
Now the United States has to contend with an aggrieved and unpredictable nuclear power, Russia. Worse, China, Iran, and North Korea have moved closer to support Russia's military efforts and counter U.S. global hegemony. This anti-American Entente has already proved strong enough to significantly reduce the effectiveness of Western aid to Ukraine, and this alliance significantly increases the costs of US military dominance. Russia now borders directly on six countries that the United States is obliged to protect under the North Atlantic Treaty. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is preparing for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Washington is not backing down yet. But his powers are terribly overstressed.
The rest of the world is also in no hurry to move to America's side. Most countries blame both sides for the Ukrainian conflict, condemning not only the Russian special operation, but also the response of the West. Mr. Biden did not help the case. Defining the conflict as a "battle between democracy and autocracy" and making little visible effort to achieve peace through diplomacy, he seems to be calling on other countries to join the endless war. Very few countries, other than the allies of the United States, have imposed sanctions against Russia. Isolating China if it attacked Taiwan would be an even more difficult task. In Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, perceptions of Russia and China have actually improved since 2022.
The war in Gaza occurred at the most inopportune moment, and Biden reacted to this disaster by rushing into battle with his head. He immediately promised to support Israel's ruthless military campaign without burdening it with the condition that it would find a way to protect the civilian population. Having decided to be a follower, not a leader, Biden was forced to express an opinion about Israel's behavior in the way that he imposed on himself. In the decisive conflict, the United States managed to be both weak and cruel at the same time. Therefore, the costs to America's reputation and security are just beginning to show up.
Not so long ago, the United States tried to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians on terms supposedly acceptable to both sides. Washington used diplomacy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state and encouraged the Saudis to "share the neighborhood," according to Barack Obama, with their Iranian rivals. At the moment, the Biden administration seems to be striving only to consolidate the anti-Iranian bloc. In exchange for Saudi Arabia's normalization of relations with Israel, Washington is going to commit itself under the treaty to defend the Saudi Kingdom with the help of American military force. This deal, even if it takes place, has a tiny chance of bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, but it will create a much greater chance to further involve the United States in regional violence.
Part of the problem is Biden's tendency to over-identify with U.S. partners. He conceded to Ukraine the decision on whether to continue peace talks and avoided contradicting its maximalist military goals. He accelerated aid to Israel, although he publicly doubted its military plans. In addition, he swore four times to defend Taiwan, each time exceeding the official commitment of the United States to arm the island, but not to fight for it. His predecessors were not always so one-sided, maintaining "strategic ambiguity," for example, about whether the United States would start a war over Taiwan.
However, Biden's instinctive actions reflect a deeper mistake that has existed in American leadership for decades. After emerging from the Cold War, American politicians linked global leadership with America's military dominance in the world. Once upon a time, the United States confidently possessed both. They could safely expand their military influence without facing deadly resistance from other major powers. "The world is no longer divided into two hostile camps," Bill Clinton declared in 1997, when he advocated NATO's expansion to the east. "Instead, we are now building ties with countries that were once our adversaries."
But strengthening these ties has never been able to overcome mutual suspicion, in part because the United States continued to value its global dominance above all else. Successive administrations have expanded U.S. alliances, unleashed frequent wars, and sought to spread liberal democracy, expecting their potential adversaries to meekly accept their fate in the American world order. Today, these naive hopes are a thing of the past, but the reflex to dominance remains. The United States continues to try to expand its presence and is met with serious resistance, which, in turn, encourages Washington to redouble these efforts, as most of the world recoils from it. But this card is a losing one, and Americans will have to take risks and spend even more to continue playing with it in their hands.
But there is a better solution. To regain global leadership, the United States must show the suspicious world community that it wants to ensure peace on the planet and increase global stability, and not just bleed the enemy or support an ally. This implies support for Ukraine, but it also requires equally diligent work to end the Ukrainian conflict at the negotiating table, as well as a gradual reduction in Washington's role in NATO and an emphasis on the fact that Europe must have its own defense. Biden's recent proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza would be remarkable if he backed it up with a threat to stop supplying weapons to Israel if it refused.
Moving away from Europe and the Middle East will strengthen America's presence where it matters most — in Asia. This will make it clear that America's goal is not to seek hegemony, as Beijing's propaganda claims, but to prevent China from establishing its own Asian hegemony. With this approach, the United States can ensure its confident leadership in the Indo-Pacific region, even if China continues to strengthen. Today, China is far from being able to impose its will on the entire region, and even an extremely risky takeover of Taiwan will not allow it to do so.
Of course, all this will not be easy. But compare this with another alternative. Leadership in only a part of the world turns the United States into an irritated catch-up. This situation puts Americans on the brink of war in the Middle East, Europe and Asia, given the fear that the loss of leadership positions anywhere will lead to disaster everywhere. However, the real danger lies in putting such a huge part of global security at stake, subordinating it to the willingness of one country to make excessive commitments. Real leaders know when to make room for others.
