Biden’s Unilateral Concessions

The Biden Administration’s bizarre policy of unilateral retreat and de-escalation is emboldening America’s adversaries, bringing the nation to the threshold of conflict.

There has been a marked change in Moscow and Beijing’s perspectives since the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. While the drawdown of U.S. forces had universal approval, the failure to leave a small force behind to prevent the victory of the Taliban, a precise repeat of then-Vice President Biden’s strategic error in Iraq earlier this century which gave rise to the ISIS caliphate, signaled that the current White House lacked expertise in foreign affairs.

The Administration has puzzled observers with a penchant for hastily providing concessions without seeking anything in return.

Despite the recognition that space was rapidly becoming a strategic realm of battle, Biden unilaterally ceased testing of American anti-satellite weaponry. In April, Vice-President Harris announced the self-imposed ban, receiving nothing in return from Russia or China.

Biden’s own Defense Department has noted that “Russia and China, our primary strategic competitors, are taking steps to undercut the United States and our allies in the space domain. Both nations view space as a requirement for winning modern wars, especially against Western nations, and look to prove themselves as world leaders. Since early 2019, competitor space operations have increased in pace and scope across nearly all major categories …China and Russia value superiority in space. And as a result, they’ll seek ways to strengthen their space and counter-space programs and determine better ways to integrate them within their respective militaries…”

The Gatestone Institute blasted the move. “Space has already become the scene of an ongoing “shadow war” in which China and Russia conduct attacks against U.S. satellites with lasers, radiofrequency jammers, and cyber-attacks every day, according to General David Thompson, the U.S. Space Force’s first vice chief of space operations..Fifteen years after China’s ASAT strike, we still lack the ability to defeat an attack on our space systems or launch an offensive strike if circumstances warrant…”

Back on Earth, as Russia built up its forces neighboring Ukraine, the White did next to nothing. No defensive weapons were provided to Ukraine to discourage Putin’s planned adventurism. After Moscow began the war, Biden provided just enough assistance to allow the Kiev government to hang on, but not win, the conflict.

Senator Ted Cruz issued a critique of Biden’s failure.

“President Biden has repeatedly, systematically undermined our Ukrainian allies in the face of Russian aggression to placate Putin. And it’s worth noting, Biden does this for the same reason he undermines Taiwan—he undermines Taiwan to placate the Chinese Communists, he undermines Ukraine to placate Putin. To placate Putin, the Biden administration has repeatedly withheld military aid packages to Ukraine. Other times he has withheld diplomatic support to pressure our Ukrainian allies into supporting his misguided Nord Stream 2 surrender to Putin. Biden’s actions for the past year have emboldened Putin, who acted on that weakness and has put Europe on the brink of war.”

Biden’s actions towards China are the most worrisome of all. He has reversed former President Trump’s efforts to combat Beijing’s prodigious espionage efforts. He has allowed it to buy land next to strategic American defense sites. As its navy has grown far larger than its U.S. equivalent, the President inexplicably has submitted budgets to Congress that shrink, rather than expand, the nation’s maritime force.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan broke no new diplomatic ground. Indeed, decades ago, then Speaker Newt Gingrich made the same journey. This time, however, China responded to the trip by surrounding the island nation and threatening war, b oth against Taiwan and the U.S.

Clearly, it felt no fear of reaction from the Biden White House.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.