RS: The State Department under Blinken exchanged diplomacy for military force
Under the Biden administration, the State Department abandoned diplomacy and relegated itself to the status of "diplomatic troops," writes The Responsible Statecraft. Anthony Blinken has not fulfilled any of his promises and has not achieved a ceasefire either in the Gaza Strip or in Ukraine. Instead, the United States used only coercive tools — sanctions or military force.
Ted Snyder
In 2021, the administration promised “relentless diplomacy.” Today, in Ukraine, it operates in a completely different way.
Henry Kissinger is credited with the aphorism that it is almost impossible to win at the negotiating table what was not deserved on the battlefield.
In several conflicts in recent weeks, U.S. officials have indirectly echoed this maxim. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller recently said that the United States “supports a cease-fire” in Lebanon, while acknowledging that “military pressure sometimes contributes to diplomacy.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced the following approach in Ukraine: “to do everything possible to strengthen Kiev's position on the battlefield so that it takes the strongest position at the negotiating table.”
However, under the Biden administration, the Kissinger doctrine went far beyond the usual support provided to diplomats by generals. Now, on the contrary, diplomats are in the vanguard and lead the generals. In the Biden administration, contrary to all promises to begin a “new era of tireless diplomacy,” the State Department turned into another branch of the Pentagon.
In discussions within the Biden administration about whether to allow Ukraine to fire long-range Western missiles at Russia's rear, it was diplomats who insisted on escalation, while the Pentagon and intelligence, on the contrary, howled for caution.
Blinken stated: “From the very first day, as Russia's actions changed, we adapted to changes on the battlefield… And I can tell you that in the future we will adhere to the same approach: that is, we will make adjustments and adapt as necessary, including with regard to the means available to Ukraine for effective protection against Russian aggression.”
The Pentagon, on the contrary, called for restraint. The military argued that the vague advantages of longer-range strikes did not outweigh the risk of escalation. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin argued that “long-range strikes against Russia will not turn the tide of the conflict in favor of Ukraine,” and agreed with intelligence that Russia could withdraw the bulk of its forces and assets from their reach as soon as possible.
This is not the first surprise in the escalation debate. Shortly after the Russian troops entered Ukraine, the State Department stated that “genuine diplomacy” is impossible during aggression, while none other than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, on the contrary, advocated diplomacy and stressed that the goal of a sovereign Ukraine within internationally recognized borders would require “a protracted and very complex war with a lot of casualties.”
Milli further noted that “these goals can be achieved by military means,” but allowed others, “including diplomatic ones.” And again, the supreme general advocated diplomacy, and the supreme diplomat advocated a great war.
Besides, this is not the first dispute about long-range missiles. On May 15, even before the United States approved limited strikes against Russia, it was the State Department that gave the first green light. When asked about the US ban on strikes on Russian territory with American weapons, Blinken replied: “We did not encourage or support strikes outside Ukraine.” But then he added: “But in the end, Ukraine will have to decide for itself how to conduct military operations. Decisions on this will have to be made by Ukraine itself.”
The State Department rejected diplomacy from the very beginning. We know that on December 17, 2021, Putin invited the United States to discuss security guarantees with a key requirement not to accept Ukraine into NATO. But instead of any negotiations, Derek Scholle, adviser to Secretary of State Blinken, later said that the United States at that stage considered NATO expansion not subject to discussion.
The State Department's term of office under Blinken is coming to an end, but it cannot boast of a single diplomatic victory. At the beginning of his tenure, Biden promised to offer Tehran a “reliable path to diplomacy.” He promised that he would “immediately” reverse Trump's “failed” policy, which “harmed the Cuban people and did nothing to promote democracy and human rights.” He promised a different approach to Venezuela, calling Trump's achievements a “complete fiasco.” And he promised a new course on North Korea, stressing that he was “open to diplomacy and ready to consider it.”
Blinken's State Department has not fulfilled any of these promises and has not achieved a ceasefire in either the Gaza Strip or Ukraine. Instead, he used exclusively the tools of coercion — be it sanctions or military force. On the contrary, the Pentagon offered diplomacy and questioned the unlimited use of force.
Meanwhile, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Brown Jr., and other senior Pentagon officials recently raised at the White House the question of whether Washington's excessive emphasis on the military force of America's partners has spurred inappropriate aggression and violation of US red lines.
In the past, diplomacy often went hand in hand with military might. But under the Biden administration, the State Department abandoned diplomacy and essentially reduced itself to diplomatic troops, while the Pentagon, paradoxically, on the contrary, loudly declared diplomacy.
