Many thanks for this sobering update. The Emperor has no clothes, as the saying goes, and the whole of Biden’s reputedly robust foreign policy will now be reviewed in the light of his failure to help Ukraine beat Putin. For fear, as is now clear, of seeing Russia collapse on his watch. His attitude may delay that inevitable outcome but it’s only a matter of time. Hopefully the foreign policy establishment in Washington is preparing for it and running through the different scenarios.
Ukrainian front-line soldiers are clearly exhausted and taking more casualties than before, as the FT and The Economist have (helpfully?) been reminding us of late. On the Russian side, the situation is undoubtedly worse but no journalist can give us a fair picture. An excellent article by Ben Connable in « War on the Rocks » quoted by Ben Hall in the FT yesterday, gives some cause for hope.
We live in that hope, and in eager expectation of a Harris victory in a month’s time.
I have this mental image of what we learn about this war. The image is of bubbles spouting on the sea's surface while monsters fight below. All we know are the bubbles. Given that, I tracked down the article you mentioned. It is worth a read because it does a good job of reminding us that Russia is also facing great uncertainty on many dimensions.
Phillip, while I am a big fan of Biden and what he has done overall, this is a major strategic foreign policy failure that is hard to be forgiven. The opportunity to help Ukraine secure its borders and future while also helping collapse the mafia/petro/dictatorship of Putin will be long regretted by military and diplomatic historians of the future.
Many Dems are stuck in the loop of blaming UKR's difficulties on the GOP House. I'd suggest a more robust effort in the prior years would have made GOP treachery less politically tempting.
Cannot argue with that, but the Obama Administration setting the tone of drawing meaningless red lines was the original sin such as it was. And then the Maga-fication of the GOP sealed it.
I agree completely; Obama’s failure to act decisively during Russia’s attack of Georgia, echoed by his feckless response to Russia in Syria, set the stage for this. Excuses about Anerica’s “war-exhaustion” is just poor leadership; a president’s job is to LEAD! IDK if Obama’s failures influenced Biden, or Biden is responsible for the inaction of Obama, either way, this has to stop, and Harris seems to be our only hope.
The 'war-exhaustion' mindset cannot be overstated given the Afghanistan and Iraq cost in dollars and lives. It is easy to look back over two decades and discount public anti-war sentiment from both those wars even from the older cold war era voters like myself. In hindsight of course I agree yet it would have been a tough sell given the way the little green men managed to be so effective in Crimea. That was the real red line (for me) and a mistake to not do more for UKR. I was disappointed by Obama then vs. frustration today at the timidness of Biden and the possibility of another Trump term.
These incidents cited above have had a cumulative effect. If we go back far enough, my disappointment goes back to Bush and the "weapons of mass destruction" con. Looking back only has so much merit. Imho, I think we citizens deserve the blame. We certainly had a wimpy protest against the wars, and we could have done more. Then again, maybe I remember Vietnam protests too clearly. At least that felt like a real issue.
With apologies to the mostly Democrat readers here, Biden is a selfish old man. He has left his successor in a pickle by not stepping back and letting them have a proper primary last year. Then holding on cfor nearly a month after the debacle of the debate! His successor could be further ahead in the polls if they had had more time to prepare.
A proper primary might have ensured Trump's victory. There are plenty of leftists who hate Jews, cops and oil. And they would have aired those hatreds loudly over several months, demanding the candidates to pander to them. The eventual winner might have generated some useful videos for the Trump campaign.
I'd say history suggests that winnowing competitive primaries are more likely to strengthen Dem candidates. But of course it might have turned out much like you say.
There are many ways it could have gone wrong. 1) Intra party fighting (think Bernie and Hillary), with sound bites for the Republicans to use. 2) Other candidates have not been vetted at a national level as has Kamala. 3) Non-access to Biden war chest. 4) None of the other candidates had a campaign structure in place, whereas Kamala could lean on the existing Biden-Harris campaign. No, the thunderdome would very likely have been bad.
A Trump victory will certainly cause many to come to the same conclusions as you about Biden. I am at least thankful that Biden did finally abandon the race.
I doubt many people who still say Biden's UKR policy was "masterful" will blame him for any consequences vis a vis UKR. I doubt UKR policy will ever have much valency. Uniformed people don't care, the informed people are deeply divided on what they consider wise policy, even within political tribes.
Interesting point about people blaming Jake Sullivan rather than Biden himself for the lack of support to Ukraine.
According to Ben Rhodes (Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama) Biden opposed the following:
- 2009 Afghan “surge”
- 2011 Libya intervention
- Operation to kill Osama Bin Laden
Suggests a tendency towards risk aversion when it comes to military operations (albeit the U.S. is not directly involved in Ukraine) and supports the hypothesis that it’s Biden himself not Sullivan who is responsible for the current policy.
Yeah, many people don't realize what a uniquely idiotic "foreign policy expert" Joe Biden has always been... and with the absolute self-confidence in his positions to ignore contrary advice.
I do suspect Sullivan's views mostly track with Biden's, but if he was actually in charge he'd probably be a little smarter about it.
I think it was Bob Gates who said Biden has been wrong on almost every foreign policy/national security matter over the last 40 years.
For me, the challenge of policymakers is neither to consistently accept or reject a particular approach, such as the use of military force, but to accurately read the conditions of the historical moment they find themselves in.
On balance I’d probably agree with you on Libya Adrian although I wonder whether a more limited campaign that sought only to stop imminent atrocities rather than undermine Gaddafi could have produced a slightly better result.
My understanding is Bob Gates and Mike Mullen also opposed intervention but others like Susan Rice were keen to avert another ‘Rwanda’.
In many ways a good example of the Chuck Hagel quote “foreign policy is all about a universe of bad choices”.
I can't understand those microadvances. Even before August they were highly questionable, as Putin perhaps would be better off preserving his force so that after the hypothetical freeze in case of Trump's victory he could rebuild his army and resume his conquest of Ukraine faster. But with the election less than a month away, should not Putin's top priority be expelling Ukrainian forces from Russia? Kursk is an enormous complication, since leaving any Russian territory under Ukrainian control indefinitely is not politically acceptable. Without it, freezing the current LOC is so much easier and may actually be achievable with Trump in the White House. I strongly suspect that the Ukrainians planned the invasion in part in response to the increase in Trump's chances in early summer.
I think I agree with you, but thinking about it... Is Kursk actually an enormous complication? Putin has aimed for and achieved a whole variety of 'frozen conflicts' around Russia's borders. Admittedly - and importantly - to date those have all involved the occupation of other countries' territory, so this is different. But in practice, I wonder if it's as different as it appears?
Putin's strategy on Kursk so far has been to downplay it, and after some initial grumbles, Russians don't seem to be very much up in arms about it, perhaps with the exception of those living near / who fled from the area. Is the practical impact of Kursk much different to other regions bordering Ukraine which have been targeted over the last year or so?
It obviously IS a danger to his narrative, but if he saw an opportunity to freeze the conflict (perhaps with the help of Trump), he'd probably take it. I'm not sure that Russia has lost enough territory for this calculation to change. He still gets to argue 'we fought the whole of NATO and liberated the east, but it's only a matter of time before the evil West and the Nazi Ukrainians invade us again'... Perhaps the credibility of that argument doesn't much change with or without a bit of Kursk?
On the other hand, I suspect that Kursk really does complicate things for Ukraine's western supporters / former supporters. It does make it harder for them to argue that the conflict should be frozen on the current lines of control.
I think Putin is trying to continue to take Ukrainian territory and expel Ukrainian forces from Kursk at the same time. He is prioritizing both, which is something that people do when they don't want to make a choice. He wants both. It will be interesting to see if and when he comes to the realization that perhaps he can't have both.
So, the Russians take yet another small town/city that has been totally obliterated, had no strategic value before and now becomes part of the “Russian wasteland” that cannot support economic activity of any kind and is a bombed out example of urban blight that exists outside of Moscow and St Petersburg. It is yet another example of Putin’s ego and nihilistic world view that has led Russia to the precipice of abyss for his own greed and insatiable need for control.
Take a look Trump Magats! This is what will happen in the US if he is elected! This really what you want?
This is probably naive but I remember that the operation to retake Fallujah was delayed until after the 2004 election and as a result, I never thought that the US was going to authorise deep strikes into Russia until after this one.
Though I'm losing faith rapidly, one can only hope that things change for the better!
Biden used to get good marks on foreign policy, but now he looks terrible on all fronts. I’ve also started seeing talks by Dr. Mearsheimer who wants to drop Ukraine & focus on China. Very disheartening.
Mearsheimer has always considered UKR as part of Russia's "sphere of influence."
The bad argument that UKR being armed for defense is equivalent to Mexico threatening to attack the U.S. has resonated with ppl anxious to believe such an analogy.
Here is an interesting argument as of why Russia is MORE likely to use a nuclear weapon if it is winning. Basically a winning Russia could turn a partial victory into a total one and better deal with consequences of nuclear use as a total winner over Ukraine.
I was heartened to hear Harris specifically call out the need to support Ukraine at her campaign event with Liz Cheney. Probably that was aimed at decent Republicans to emphasize her foreign policy strength, but anyway good to hear.
And it makes no sense to me. If Biden had supported Ukraine properly, would Russia have given up by now? Possibly / probably not. But it can only have helped the Democrats' chances in the election to have had a successful foreign policy record rather than what is looking increasingly like a failed one. In a sense it doesn't matter that Trump's would be so much worse... Trump draws strength from the discrediting of others even if he has nothing positive to offer in its place.
I still wonder about the how and why of the US strategy. Could it be that the threat from Russia is seen as secondary and that the real danger lies ahead in the Pacific? I miss those updates tbh, if I'm not mistaken there is still an update underway?
That's just an excuse in most cases. IMO the real problem with the foreign policy establishment is fetishizationn of the status quo and being terrified of change, because that would force them to think, which most have successfully avoided doing for decades.
Russia is imposing huge immediate costs (mostly unmet costs) so it's just easier for people and politicians to turn away. If China actually invades Taiwan, I fear we may see more tough talk about solidarity fizzle when the costs come due
I think most analysts and political leaders know now that China-Russia-N.Korea-Iran are acting in alliance, and trending more so.
BTW the Quincy's "Responsible Statecraft" did a rueful summary of Stoltenberg's exiting remarks. They think his points are war-mongering, but they actually read as pretty mainstream reasonable. Worth a look.
Thanks, Prof, for your analysis. I share your hope come Nov and worry about the outcome - even if Harris wins. To be honest, I do not understand a lot of what is happening in this country and am still thoroughly confused about all these "victims". I wonder how a world map would look.- probably with the US huge and all the other countries dots on the surface.
Stoltenberg is quoted stating that the West never rose to the occasion in terms of materials provided and when they were finally given to Ukraine. Given the failures of analysis outlined in your report, for months the West was arming prospective native uprisings and not military actions. More than a failure of analysis, given what was happening, there was denial.
Of course you are right that we must all hope for a Harris victory. I’ve also noticed her statements have gone beyond the standard issue ‘as long as it takes’ platitudes. She’s mentioned victory, territorial integrity and UN recognised borders. In the worse case she continues Bidens policy on auto pilot and at least said continues to flow. But it would seem logical that a new president would wish to show strength rather than suffer from the perception of weakness Biden clearly has now. We can but hope!
There are plenty weapons available for the ones who use them to kill women and children, none for the brave Ukrainians figthing for their freedom, and safety for the rest of Europe. USA have made it crystal clear that Israel is more important for them than Europe. I do not think that this will change much, even if Harris wins the election.
Many thanks for this sobering update. The Emperor has no clothes, as the saying goes, and the whole of Biden’s reputedly robust foreign policy will now be reviewed in the light of his failure to help Ukraine beat Putin. For fear, as is now clear, of seeing Russia collapse on his watch. His attitude may delay that inevitable outcome but it’s only a matter of time. Hopefully the foreign policy establishment in Washington is preparing for it and running through the different scenarios.
Ukrainian front-line soldiers are clearly exhausted and taking more casualties than before, as the FT and The Economist have (helpfully?) been reminding us of late. On the Russian side, the situation is undoubtedly worse but no journalist can give us a fair picture. An excellent article by Ben Connable in « War on the Rocks » quoted by Ben Hall in the FT yesterday, gives some cause for hope.
We live in that hope, and in eager expectation of a Harris victory in a month’s time.
I have this mental image of what we learn about this war. The image is of bubbles spouting on the sea's surface while monsters fight below. All we know are the bubbles. Given that, I tracked down the article you mentioned. It is worth a read because it does a good job of reminding us that Russia is also facing great uncertainty on many dimensions.
https://warontherocks.com/2024/09/russians-do-break-historical-and-cultural-context-for-a-prospective-ukrainian-victory/
Phillip, while I am a big fan of Biden and what he has done overall, this is a major strategic foreign policy failure that is hard to be forgiven. The opportunity to help Ukraine secure its borders and future while also helping collapse the mafia/petro/dictatorship of Putin will be long regretted by military and diplomatic historians of the future.
Many Dems are stuck in the loop of blaming UKR's difficulties on the GOP House. I'd suggest a more robust effort in the prior years would have made GOP treachery less politically tempting.
Cannot argue with that, but the Obama Administration setting the tone of drawing meaningless red lines was the original sin such as it was. And then the Maga-fication of the GOP sealed it.
I agree completely; Obama’s failure to act decisively during Russia’s attack of Georgia, echoed by his feckless response to Russia in Syria, set the stage for this. Excuses about Anerica’s “war-exhaustion” is just poor leadership; a president’s job is to LEAD! IDK if Obama’s failures influenced Biden, or Biden is responsible for the inaction of Obama, either way, this has to stop, and Harris seems to be our only hope.
The 'war-exhaustion' mindset cannot be overstated given the Afghanistan and Iraq cost in dollars and lives. It is easy to look back over two decades and discount public anti-war sentiment from both those wars even from the older cold war era voters like myself. In hindsight of course I agree yet it would have been a tough sell given the way the little green men managed to be so effective in Crimea. That was the real red line (for me) and a mistake to not do more for UKR. I was disappointed by Obama then vs. frustration today at the timidness of Biden and the possibility of another Trump term.
These incidents cited above have had a cumulative effect. If we go back far enough, my disappointment goes back to Bush and the "weapons of mass destruction" con. Looking back only has so much merit. Imho, I think we citizens deserve the blame. We certainly had a wimpy protest against the wars, and we could have done more. Then again, maybe I remember Vietnam protests too clearly. At least that felt like a real issue.
With apologies to the mostly Democrat readers here, Biden is a selfish old man. He has left his successor in a pickle by not stepping back and letting them have a proper primary last year. Then holding on cfor nearly a month after the debacle of the debate! His successor could be further ahead in the polls if they had had more time to prepare.
A proper primary might have ensured Trump's victory. There are plenty of leftists who hate Jews, cops and oil. And they would have aired those hatreds loudly over several months, demanding the candidates to pander to them. The eventual winner might have generated some useful videos for the Trump campaign.
I'd say history suggests that winnowing competitive primaries are more likely to strengthen Dem candidates. But of course it might have turned out much like you say.
There are many ways it could have gone wrong. 1) Intra party fighting (think Bernie and Hillary), with sound bites for the Republicans to use. 2) Other candidates have not been vetted at a national level as has Kamala. 3) Non-access to Biden war chest. 4) None of the other candidates had a campaign structure in place, whereas Kamala could lean on the existing Biden-Harris campaign. No, the thunderdome would very likely have been bad.
A Trump victory will certainly cause many to come to the same conclusions as you about Biden. I am at least thankful that Biden did finally abandon the race.
I doubt many people who still say Biden's UKR policy was "masterful" will blame him for any consequences vis a vis UKR. I doubt UKR policy will ever have much valency. Uniformed people don't care, the informed people are deeply divided on what they consider wise policy, even within political tribes.
Interesting point about people blaming Jake Sullivan rather than Biden himself for the lack of support to Ukraine.
According to Ben Rhodes (Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama) Biden opposed the following:
- 2009 Afghan “surge”
- 2011 Libya intervention
- Operation to kill Osama Bin Laden
Suggests a tendency towards risk aversion when it comes to military operations (albeit the U.S. is not directly involved in Ukraine) and supports the hypothesis that it’s Biden himself not Sullivan who is responsible for the current policy.
Yeah, many people don't realize what a uniquely idiotic "foreign policy expert" Joe Biden has always been... and with the absolute self-confidence in his positions to ignore contrary advice.
I do suspect Sullivan's views mostly track with Biden's, but if he was actually in charge he'd probably be a little smarter about it.
I think it was Bob Gates who said Biden has been wrong on almost every foreign policy/national security matter over the last 40 years.
For me, the challenge of policymakers is neither to consistently accept or reject a particular approach, such as the use of military force, but to accurately read the conditions of the historical moment they find themselves in.
Biden was absolutely, positively correct about Libya and probably correct about Afghanistan too. That's a much better track record than the ISW.
On balance I’d probably agree with you on Libya Adrian although I wonder whether a more limited campaign that sought only to stop imminent atrocities rather than undermine Gaddafi could have produced a slightly better result.
My understanding is Bob Gates and Mike Mullen also opposed intervention but others like Susan Rice were keen to avert another ‘Rwanda’.
In many ways a good example of the Chuck Hagel quote “foreign policy is all about a universe of bad choices”.
I can't understand those microadvances. Even before August they were highly questionable, as Putin perhaps would be better off preserving his force so that after the hypothetical freeze in case of Trump's victory he could rebuild his army and resume his conquest of Ukraine faster. But with the election less than a month away, should not Putin's top priority be expelling Ukrainian forces from Russia? Kursk is an enormous complication, since leaving any Russian territory under Ukrainian control indefinitely is not politically acceptable. Without it, freezing the current LOC is so much easier and may actually be achievable with Trump in the White House. I strongly suspect that the Ukrainians planned the invasion in part in response to the increase in Trump's chances in early summer.
I think I agree with you, but thinking about it... Is Kursk actually an enormous complication? Putin has aimed for and achieved a whole variety of 'frozen conflicts' around Russia's borders. Admittedly - and importantly - to date those have all involved the occupation of other countries' territory, so this is different. But in practice, I wonder if it's as different as it appears?
Putin's strategy on Kursk so far has been to downplay it, and after some initial grumbles, Russians don't seem to be very much up in arms about it, perhaps with the exception of those living near / who fled from the area. Is the practical impact of Kursk much different to other regions bordering Ukraine which have been targeted over the last year or so?
It obviously IS a danger to his narrative, but if he saw an opportunity to freeze the conflict (perhaps with the help of Trump), he'd probably take it. I'm not sure that Russia has lost enough territory for this calculation to change. He still gets to argue 'we fought the whole of NATO and liberated the east, but it's only a matter of time before the evil West and the Nazi Ukrainians invade us again'... Perhaps the credibility of that argument doesn't much change with or without a bit of Kursk?
On the other hand, I suspect that Kursk really does complicate things for Ukraine's western supporters / former supporters. It does make it harder for them to argue that the conflict should be frozen on the current lines of control.
I think Putin is trying to continue to take Ukrainian territory and expel Ukrainian forces from Kursk at the same time. He is prioritizing both, which is something that people do when they don't want to make a choice. He wants both. It will be interesting to see if and when he comes to the realization that perhaps he can't have both.
So, the Russians take yet another small town/city that has been totally obliterated, had no strategic value before and now becomes part of the “Russian wasteland” that cannot support economic activity of any kind and is a bombed out example of urban blight that exists outside of Moscow and St Petersburg. It is yet another example of Putin’s ego and nihilistic world view that has led Russia to the precipice of abyss for his own greed and insatiable need for control.
Take a look Trump Magats! This is what will happen in the US if he is elected! This really what you want?
This is probably naive but I remember that the operation to retake Fallujah was delayed until after the 2004 election and as a result, I never thought that the US was going to authorise deep strikes into Russia until after this one.
Though I'm losing faith rapidly, one can only hope that things change for the better!
Biden used to get good marks on foreign policy, but now he looks terrible on all fronts. I’ve also started seeing talks by Dr. Mearsheimer who wants to drop Ukraine & focus on China. Very disheartening.
My recollection is that Mearsheimer blames the war on the west anyway. He fully accepts the Kremlin's talking points on the war.
Mearsheimer has always considered UKR as part of Russia's "sphere of influence."
The bad argument that UKR being armed for defense is equivalent to Mexico threatening to attack the U.S. has resonated with ppl anxious to believe such an analogy.
What about a deal like this ? ...
Ukraine get the go-ahead for missile strikes inside Russia, but only if Russia conducts missile strikes inside Ukraine.
Here is an interesting argument as of why Russia is MORE likely to use a nuclear weapon if it is winning. Basically a winning Russia could turn a partial victory into a total one and better deal with consequences of nuclear use as a total winner over Ukraine.
https://thebulletin.org/2024/10/why-russia-is-more-likely-to-go-nuclear-in-ukraine-if-its-winning/
I was heartened to hear Harris specifically call out the need to support Ukraine at her campaign event with Liz Cheney. Probably that was aimed at decent Republicans to emphasize her foreign policy strength, but anyway good to hear.
Depressing, but I think you're right.
And it makes no sense to me. If Biden had supported Ukraine properly, would Russia have given up by now? Possibly / probably not. But it can only have helped the Democrats' chances in the election to have had a successful foreign policy record rather than what is looking increasingly like a failed one. In a sense it doesn't matter that Trump's would be so much worse... Trump draws strength from the discrediting of others even if he has nothing positive to offer in its place.
I still wonder about the how and why of the US strategy. Could it be that the threat from Russia is seen as secondary and that the real danger lies ahead in the Pacific? I miss those updates tbh, if I'm not mistaken there is still an update underway?
That's just an excuse in most cases. IMO the real problem with the foreign policy establishment is fetishizationn of the status quo and being terrified of change, because that would force them to think, which most have successfully avoided doing for decades.
Russia is imposing huge immediate costs (mostly unmet costs) so it's just easier for people and politicians to turn away. If China actually invades Taiwan, I fear we may see more tough talk about solidarity fizzle when the costs come due
I think most analysts and political leaders know now that China-Russia-N.Korea-Iran are acting in alliance, and trending more so.
BTW the Quincy's "Responsible Statecraft" did a rueful summary of Stoltenberg's exiting remarks. They think his points are war-mongering, but they actually read as pretty mainstream reasonable. Worth a look.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russian-military-draft/
Thanks, Prof, for your analysis. I share your hope come Nov and worry about the outcome - even if Harris wins. To be honest, I do not understand a lot of what is happening in this country and am still thoroughly confused about all these "victims". I wonder how a world map would look.- probably with the US huge and all the other countries dots on the surface.
Stoltenberg is quoted stating that the West never rose to the occasion in terms of materials provided and when they were finally given to Ukraine. Given the failures of analysis outlined in your report, for months the West was arming prospective native uprisings and not military actions. More than a failure of analysis, given what was happening, there was denial.
Of course you are right that we must all hope for a Harris victory. I’ve also noticed her statements have gone beyond the standard issue ‘as long as it takes’ platitudes. She’s mentioned victory, territorial integrity and UN recognised borders. In the worse case she continues Bidens policy on auto pilot and at least said continues to flow. But it would seem logical that a new president would wish to show strength rather than suffer from the perception of weakness Biden clearly has now. We can but hope!
There are plenty weapons available for the ones who use them to kill women and children, none for the brave Ukrainians figthing for their freedom, and safety for the rest of Europe. USA have made it crystal clear that Israel is more important for them than Europe. I do not think that this will change much, even if Harris wins the election.