Weekly Overview
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 51 sec.
Biden’s rhetoric - no longer ‘‘Rolling over’’ to Russia, is directed at a domestic audience
President Biden delivered an overall impressive and much needed foreign policy speech at the State Department.
Of particular note, was his commentary on US / Russia relations, and his choice of framing the relationship under the previous administration.
On Russia, Biden said the following: ‘‘I made it clear to President Putin in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions, interfering with our elections, cyber attacks, poisoning citizens are over,”
There is much to unpack here.
Firstly, is it actually true that under the Trump admin, US was rolling over when it came to Russia?
No.
It is true that President Trump himself did make a number of favorable statements about Putin - many of which were poorly timed and clearly contradicted other diplomatic and intel community statements/actions.
Nevertheless, a holistic view uncovers a rather different reality.
It was under the Trump presidency that:
1) Ukraine was finally supplied with lethal weapons that significantly increased the cost of military operations for the rebels in eastern regions - reducing the number and scale of actual fighting.
In other words, a foreign policy that actually worked in containing Russia.
2) In 2017, US engaged in air strikes against the Syrian regime (for chemical weapon usage) when Russian troops were already there - protecting Assad.
Just 4 years before that, under the pre-Trump admin, (and when Russia did not have a presence in Syria like in 2017) Obama declared red lines for Assad and then failed to honor them.
3) Trump imposed a number of high profile sanctions on Russia - starting with August 2017 sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions act (CAATSA). Only eight months into his presidency - when his public rhetoric towards Putin was much softer than in the subsequent years.
4) Russian ‘‘Kaspersky labs’’ cybersecurity company was banned from use by the US government.
5) By the end of 2017, White House National Security Strategy document officially identified Russia (and China) as adversarial to the US.
6) US released the ‘‘oligarch list’’ and a number of entities and individuals were sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act
7) There were indictments in relation to the cyber security attacks and election meddling
8) Under Sec of Defense, Mattis the US lead coalition killed around 100 Russian mercenaries in Syria - as an act of self-defense and retaliation.
So overall, yes Trump was publicly soft towards Putin - but US was definitely not rolling over.
Many more (and certainly larger in scale) sanctions and retaliations should have been implemented - especially in relation to cyber attacks and election meddling.
But on the whole, far from rolling over.
Secondly, was Putin the intended audience of this speech?
No, to start with, simply because Biden claims he already told all of this to Putin in a private conversation.
Furthermore, Putin already knows that under the Biden admin US will be even more active and quick to retaliate.
He knows this from Biden’s public statements as a presidential candidate.
Also from both Biden and Blinken’s very first actions.
He also knows that unlike the previous administration, Biden team will be open to the idea of a NATO expansion in Russia’s backyard - Blinken confirmed this in his confirmation hearing expressing his openness to Georgia’s membership of NATO.
So Putin knows, Russia knows, every other country knows this too.
Which leads us to the third point: So why did Biden use that particular phrase? Why label the past US response to Russian aggression in such a visceral language.
After all, he could have used more passive terms to describe the situation.
Why use the language that leads to visual associations? That makes Americans recoil at the suggestion that they were rolling over.
This visceral, evocative language was selected because the intended recipient of this message was the domestic American audience.
Why?
Because the country is polarized and on edge with everything that is going on.
A substantial part of the electorate (especially the swing voter decision maker types) supported Biden to ensure the ‘‘return to normalcy’’
Consequently, the last thing the American public wants is yet another cold war.
So when Biden frames the upcoming conflict as an end to passivity and rolling over (as opposed to something extremely proactive), he aims to alleviate public anxiety.
That US will merely no longer roll over - instead of being new level of assertive (which is closer to the actual truth).
And who would not want to stop rolling over?
Make it a matter of public pride and get a license for even more aggressive foreign policy.
Brilliant trick of political communication.
But, was this really justified? What are some downsides to this rhetoric?
Well for starters, admitting in front of the whole world that US was rolling over - what is an evocative image for the American public, is also for the whole world.
I submit that the damage to the US standing and prestige from this (factually shaky) admission overwhelms any marginal benefits that Biden scored domestically.
There were many (and less visceral) ways to describe the unsatisfactory status quo.
Biden could have said something along the lines of ‘‘US patience has limits, and they have been crossed’’.
This may not have been a similarly effective call to action, but it would at least imply vast reserves of US power that was about to be unleashed (with added benefit of being factually correct).
Crucially, and on the global stage, the US prowess would have been confirmed - not undermined.
A day in the life of the world’s worst diplomat
On Friday, when Navalny was brought back into the courtroom (for a different, also ridiculous, slander trial) , EU’s chief of foreign affairs, the number one diplomat, Josep Borrell traveled to Moscow and met Russian FM Sergei Lavrov.
Mr Borrell is an extremely unremarkable man.
He has a charisma of an aging plankton.
But his lack of gravitas is not the main issue here.
Unfortunately for the EU, for the US and the whole western civilization, he is also utterly incompetent - and he did not fail at grabbing yet another opportunity to prove this.
To start with, Borrell was visiting Moscow when only a few days prior to his arrival, Kremlin used brutal violence and detained more than 5k peaceful protestors.
Navalny was already sentenced for the first ‘‘offense’’ and was appearing in court for a second show trial.
Mr Borrell refused to see Navalny - he did not appear in the courtroom, nor did he visit him in prison.
This in itself was already a massive win for Kremlin.
Thereafter, Russian FM Lavrov, labelled EU as an unreliable partner (the only thing I agree with Kremlin on).
And why would he not call EU unreliable?
After all, Mr Borrell proved Lavrov’s point by responding to the Russian journalist’s question about Cuba in a way that attacked America - supposedly the closest partner of the EU.
Instead of showing EU’s resolve and intent to hold Russia accountable, Mr Borrell talked about his hopes for a Russian vaccine’s wide availability in Europe.
He also stated that there were no EU wide plans to place new sanctions on Russia.
Now this is rolling over.
To add insult to the injury, Russia expelled diplomats from the three EU states (Germany, Poland and Sweden) on the very same day of Borrell’s visit to Moscow.
How a man so obviously useless made it to the very top of EU’s bureaucracy astounds me.
I would not trust Mr Borrell to negotiate a salary increase of an average office worker, let alone conduct high-level diplomatic engagement with seasoned realpolitik player like Lavrov..
France signals to China/US and UK is once again becoming an assertive global player.
In his Atlantic Forum speech, French president Macron emphasized the importance of Europe’s "strategic autonomy".
To avoid any confusion, and to signal to the US that little demands should be made of them (or rather of France in particular), Macron made further remarks:
‘‘Our duty, definitely, is not to put ourselves in a situation to depend on a U.S. decision.’’
Our Duty is an interesting choice of words.
Duty is owed to someone or to something - and in this context it is to the European interests.
Essentially, Macron had two aims:
1) remind the US that EU/China investment deal (with accompanied refusal of EU to wait and consult with the incoming Biden team) wasn’t a one-off event - that EU should and will prioritize its own interests.
+ that France in particular is not interested to be a party in the upcoming escalation of US/China cold war.
2) Signal to China that it is open to independent (of both US and EU) deal making - and that it is assertive enough to make things happen within the EU.
Undoubtedly an invitation to China to deepen its relationship with France - come spend money over here.
Macron’s later reiteration that Chinese partnership is not as equally valuable as that of the US was only window dressing - designed to prevent an actual open crisis in the EU / US relationship.
With France in the hands of Macron, and Germany likely getting a new Russia friendly Chancellor (Armin Laschet) in September, it is great news for America that Britain is asserting itself on the global chessboard.
In the past couple of weeks, UK:
1)Showed resolve on Hong Kong (offering residency and a path to citizenship to the millions trapped under Beijing’s undemocratic rule) ;
2) Declared plans to join TPP - this is great, we will have a strong ally in an important position of power - big help in shaping rules in our favor.
UK’s membership would be particularly important given China’s expressed desire to join TPP (per Xi Jinping’s speech in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum).
3) Demonstrated leadership on Myanmar - occasionally even using a tougher rhetoric against the coup.
4) Initiated high-profile security talks and stronger security cooperation with Japan - to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific in the context of growing Chinese assertiveness.
All good news for America - a reliable ally in Europe that is increasingly willing to assert its power.