PDA

View Full Version : Analysis-Putin’s Ukraine Assault Confounds Biden Strategy, Puts Leadership To The Tes



Gunny
02-24-2022, 12:54 PM
Should have put this in humor as joke of the day. The author makes it appear Biden is doing the best he can but circumstances are all that's holding him back.:rolleyes:

Just to point out that Biden made assurance after assurance that putin did not have to fear US military response.


February 24, 2022
By Matt Spetalnick, Simon Lewis and Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -He threatened to impose the harshest sanctions ever on Russia. He worked to galvanize U.S. allies into a united front. He supplied Ukraine with more weapons than any American president before him. And he beefed up U.S. forces on NATO’s eastern flank as reassurance of his commitment.
Despite U.S. President Joe Biden’s efforts to head off a Russian attack against Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin was undeterred as his forces invaded on Thursday in a mass assault by land, air and sea. After weeks of fruitless diplomacy, Russian missiles rained down on Ukrainian cities and troops poured across the border from Russia and Belarus.
How Biden deals with the unfolding crisis, which Western officials fear could spiral into the bloodiest European conflict since World War Two, is expected to have profound implications for his political fortunes and U.S. relations with the world.
Biden vowed the United States and its allies would respond decisively to Russia’s “unprovoked and unjustified attack.”
But his handling of the biggest international crisis of his presidency has been deemed something of a mixed bag so far.
Biden was always going to be limited because his administration made clear it would do whatever it could to help Ukraine defend itself but was not going to put troops on the ground.
His preference for diplomacy and sanctions reflects the scant appetite Americans have for intervention after the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires.
Putin had the advantage of knowing Biden was not going to war against another nuclear power to protect a country that shared a long border with Russia — and with which Washington had no defense agreement.
FOCUS ON NATO’S EASTERN FLANK
Biden focused instead on coordinating with NATO allies, especially those in the east worried about the spillover from Russia’s buildup of 150,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.
Washington spearheaded an initial round of sanctions after Putin ordered troops into two separatist-controlled breakaway regions after recognizing them as independent on Feb. 21. It was a warning shot that failed to ward off Thursday’s action.
In the prelude, Biden’s messaging strategy was to issue dire predictions of an imminent invasion to show he knew what Putin was up to — even if he couldn’t stop him.
A key result has been to re-energize a Western military alliance that had fallen into disrepair under Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who had questioned the value of NATO.
A senior European diplomat described Biden’s consultations with allies as “exemplary,” a contrast to how many partners viewed last year’s chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Some analysts questioned, however, whether deploying a few thousand additional U.S. troops to Germany, Poland and Romania was sufficient, and suggested Biden could have done more to maintain a credible military option.
“One of the shortcomings is the deterrence package that we’ve developed is kind of asymmetrical in that it’s mostly economic and we’re facing a military threat,” said Ian Kelly, a former U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and Georgia.
Kelly said Biden could have sought activation of the NATO Response Force and sent it into Poland and the Baltic states, with the message: “You have massed troops on your border. We’re massing troops on our border; we’ll withdraw when you withdraw.”
PRAISE FOR ALLIANCE BUILDING
Analysts credit Biden with working with allies to prepare sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy and hitting Putin’s inner circle. He persuaded Germany, long considered the weak link, to freeze approvals for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.
Next steps could include an attempt to sever Russia’s links to the global financial system.
Some U.S. lawmakers contended it would have been more effective to slap sanctions on Russia earlier, but Biden officials insisted that would have diminished their impact now.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that sanctions could spur higher oil prices, adding to Biden’s challenge of fighting inflation.
It remains to be seen whether sanctions will get Putin to back down.
Biden’s decision to declassify intelligence about what it alleged were Russian plots to fabricate pretexts for a Ukraine invasion was also praised for countering Putin’s misinformation.
Andrew Weiss, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank in Washington, said this “kept Putin in the hot seat.”
But the administration drew criticism for refusing to offer concrete evidence. Some commentators recalled intelligence claims used to justify the 2003 Iraq invasion of a renewed nuclear program that proved not to exist.
NATO’S ‘OPEN DOOR’
Biden was also hailed by Western governments for sticking to NATO’s “open door” for aspiring members. But some critics said Biden should have been more explicit about how far away Ukraine was from entry, given that one of Putin’s chief demands was to eschew further expansion eastward of the security pact.
Biden’s response could also have repercussions for U.S.-China relations. There is concern if Biden appears too soft on Moscow, China could take it as acquiescence to act against self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province.
As the crisis unfolded, Biden spoke regularly to world leaders, including Putin himself, taking a forceful stand with the former KGB officer, to whom Trump had shown deference.
Behind closed doors, a cross-government “Tiger Team” conducted tabletop exercises gaming out every possible scenario.
Putin’s defiance could give Republicans a cudgel to use against Biden and his fellow Democrats in the November midterm congressional elections, which will decide the balance of power in Washington.
And Biden’s strategy leading up to the Russian attack will come under closer scrutiny as he charts the path forward.
(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Simon Lewis, Steve Holland, Michelle Nichols, Humeyra Pamuk, David Brunnstrom, Idrees Ali; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Jonathan Oatis)
https://www.oann.com/analysis-putins-ukraine-assault-confounds-biden-strategy-puts-leadership-to-the-test/

Gunny
02-24-2022, 12:58 PM
"Analysis" must be the word of the day in the media.


February 24, 2022
By Mark Trevelyan
(Reuters) – It happened in plain sight: a relentless accumulation of troops, tanks and rockets that took place over nearly four months and was captured by ordinary Russians on their cellphones and dashcams, as well as by commercial and spy satellites.
U.S. President Joe Biden warned as far back as Jan. 19 that Russian President Vladimir Putin would “move in” on Ukraine. By Feb. 18, he was convinced that Putin had decided to invade within days and attack the capital Kyiv.
But frantic diplomacy, sanctions threats and unprecedented U.S.-led “information warfare” proved powerless to prevent what finally unfolded in the early hours of Thursday, as Russia’s missiles struck Ukrainian cities and its troops poured across the borders.
Crucially, Putin knew the United States and NATO would not intervene to fight alongside Ukraine. Western leaders had publicly ruled that out, on the grounds that Ukraine is not an alliance member.
“That was the biggest missing piece. The moment you say to Putin that you are not going to fight whatever happens, he has got the upper hand. He was content to take that (sanctions) risk because to him that risk looked calculable,” said Jonathan Eyal of the RUSI think-tank in London.
“He didn’t befuddle us, he didn’t bamboozle us – we knew what he was up to. The only problem was that we were not prepared to take the ultimate risk.”
KREMLIN JOKE
For weeks, Russia had publicly mocked the increasingly urgent Western warnings that it could invade any time, accusing the United States and its allies of hysteria and war-mongering.
Putin’s spokesman said the Kremlin leader had joked about media reports naming dates for the planned invasion, asking aides to let him know what time it would start.
All the time, he was moving closer to pulling the trigger.
The Russian military build-up from November onwards took place exactly in parallel with what Putin presented as a major diplomatic initiative to enforce Russian “red lines” and obtain legally binding security guarantees from the West.
In December, Russia presented demands to the United States and NATO that even analysts close to the Kremlin said Moscow knew would be rejected. They included calls to block Ukraine from ever joining NATO and to remove all military infrastructure the alliance had placed in eastern Europe since 1997.
It was a trap for the West. Engagement with Russia, let alone concessions, would appear to reward it for threatening behaviour; outright rejection of Moscow’s demands would be used by Putin as evidence that Russia’s opponents had spurned diplomacy and that he had no choice but to take matters into his own hands – exactly the argument that he used this week.
As the Russian military build-up intensified, NATO responded by sending thousands more troops to eastern Europe and supplying Ukraine with weapons including anti-tank missiles. This too was presented by Putin as proof of aggressive Western intent.
RUSSIAN PLAYBOOK
The United States saw what was coming, even if it was unsure about the size and scale of a looming Russian attack. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said repeatedly that Russia was following the same military and propaganda “playbook” that it used before seizing Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
But threats of massive and unprecedented sanctions proved ineffective against a country that has already lived with sanctions for years, has accumulated $635 billion in gold and foreign exchange reserves and supplies a third of Europe’s gas.
Even as they ramped up those warnings, Western leaders wondered aloud if they would just bounce off Putin. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said sanctions “may not be enough to deter an irrational actor”.
In a rare and risky move, the United States and Britain released intelligence warnings of “false flag” operations they said Russia planned to conduct. Blinken told the United Nations these could include a real or fake chemical attack for which Russia would pin the blame on Ukraine.
Eyal praised the U.S. intelligence tactics, which he said had likely come as a surprise to Putin and proved effective in exposing his intentions. But he said the failure of the sanctions approach lay in placing a quantifiable ceiling on the costs that Putin would face, instead of keeping him guessing.
“He always had the upper hand in the escalation of this crisis because he knew the maximum he could expect from us. At no point did we succeed in persuading him that our response would be so uncertain that he should not contemplate the operation.”
FALSE SIGNALS
All the while, Putin went through the motions of diplomacy, including two phone calls with Biden and long meetings with the leaders of France and Germany in the Kremlin. French sources said Macron found him a changed man compared with their previous meeting three years earlier, lecturing him over five hours on grievances dating back to the end of the Cold War.
At a news conference afterwards, Putin said he was willing to keep negotiating. But in one of a series of angry public diatribes, he also evoked the threat of a Russia-NATO conflict if Ukraine joined the alliance, demanding of a French reporter: “Do you want France to go to war with Russia?”
In the last 10 days before the invasion, Putin sent out false signals. At a made-for-TV moment on Feb. 14, his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, was shown telling him that diplomatic possibilities were “far from exhausted” and recommending continuing down that track.
In the following days, the Russian defence ministry published video that it said showed Russian tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled artillery units pulling away from areas surrounding Ukraine. Financial markets briefly rallied, until NATO and the United States said Moscow was in fact adding even more units and edging closer to the border.
The final step for Putin was to put in place a quasi-legal basis for intervention – much as he had with the 2014 seizure of Crimea, which he justified with the staging of a referendum.
On Monday he recognised the “independence” of two Russian-backed separatist regions in eastern Ukraine which have been fighting Ukrainian government forces for eight years, and signed friendship treaties allowing for the deployment of Russian forces there and the establishment of Russian military bases.
The signing was preceded by a speech lasting nearly an hour in which Putin argued that Ukraine was an artificial country that “never had a tradition of genuine statehood”. Now, he said, it was a U.S. puppet and a springboard for NATO aggression against Russia.
“From those who seized and hold power in Kyiv, we demand an immediate cessation of hostilities,” Putin said. “Otherwise, all responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will be entirely on the conscience of the regime ruling on the territory of Ukraine.”
Just over 48 hours later, Russian forces invaded Ukraine by land, air and sea.
(Reporting by Mark Trevelyan; Editing by Gareth Jones)
https://www.oann.com/analysis-putin-launches-a-war-the-west-saw-coming-but-was-powerless-to-stop/

fj1200
02-24-2022, 01:45 PM
A slow moving car wreck.