Walter Russell Mead on the other hand doesn’t take such a rosy view of the Biden Administration’s handling of the situation. Rather than fisking his Wall Street Journal column, I’ll try to synopsize it.
1. President Biden has succeeded in rallying NATO.
Dr. Mead’s remarks:
Joe Biden was right, and Donald Trump was wrong, to see the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and democratic values as important elements in American foreign policy. NATO’s response to the Russian aggression in Ukraine was faster and more far-reaching than Moscow expected. And as Russia’s assault on Ukraine continues, the bravery and democratic values of Ukraine’s defenders remind hundreds of millions of people how important democracy is and how squalid and brutal authoritarian kleptocracies can become.
These successes, however welcome, are both insufficient and incomplete. Inspiring as NATO’s reaction has been, neither the prospect nor the reality of Western sanctions has affected Russia’s conduct of the war.
I think that’s a bit premature. I’ll be more impressed when Germany actually rebuilds its military and stops buying oil and gas from Russia. To date its actions have largely consisted of press releases.
2. The administration’s approach to great power diplomacy has failed.
Dr. Mead’s remarks:
After a year of vain efforts to “park Russia†or to pry it away from China, the administration is trying the same strategy in reverse, now hoping to peel China from Russia. We shall see if national security adviser Jake Sullivan’s meetings this week in Rome lead to Chinese cooperation with the Western anti-Russia campaign, but Beijing won’t help Mr. Biden out of the goodness of its heart.
3. The administration’s climate agenda is in disarray.
Dr. Mead’s remarks:
As the administration frantically hunts for oil and gas world-wide, it is throwing both climate and human-rights scruples overboard—so far, to little effect. Efforts to cultivate the Maduro dictatorship in Venezuela have produced blowback in Congress. Saudi Arabia demonstrated its contempt for Team Biden by following its rejection of the administration’s plea to pump more oil with the largest mass execution in its history. Not to be outdone, Iran launched a series of missile attacks on what it claimed were Israeli targets in the Kurdish region of Iraq. China capped a disastrous climate weekend by announcing plans to expand domestic coal mining by 300 million tons a year and to build a 620-million-ton coal reserve.
I think Dr. Mead is overestimating the Biden Administration’s need for coherence. Indeed, a coherent policy would risk fracturing his own caucus.
U. S. inflation and ongoing effects of the pandemic threaten a global economic crisis.
Dr. Mead’s remarks:
With major Chinese cities and transportation hubs closed because of Omicron fears and new cases in Germany hitting record levels, the pandemic continues to stoke inflationary pressures. The rippling consequences of Russia sanctions—and of Russian retaliation—help fuel commodity price inflation while increasing financial uncertainty. Economic disarray seems likely to narrow the administration’s overseas options further in coming months while undermining its political position as midterms approach.
IMO the administration’s error here has been in continuing to follow its preferred playbook: subsidizing consumer demand to produce economic growth and political support at home. Our problems are different from those faced in the past. We import too much and manufacture too little. Telling people to “buy American” is vitiated by our failure to produce in America. There needs to be a different, more pragmatic approach to regulations and taxation.
I agree with this observation of Dr. Mead’s completely:
Our ability to influence the behavior of others on issues like human rights and climate change depends on our geopolitical power much more than on the purity of our hearts and the nobility of our goals.
America’s ability to influence is downstream of its economic might. Strength through retail sales does not promote that. Additionally, we can’t promote a liberal international order while violating our treaty commitments at will.
I keep hearing this notion that Trump did not value NATO. My recollection is that he pissed them off by demanding their sorry asses pay what they agreed to into NATO, instead of freeloading of the US. And that really means Germany more than anyone. That’s a financing issue, not a strategic goal issue.
” Indeed, a coherent policy would risk fracturing his own caucus.”
There’s been a lot of talk about treason recently, and by pundits in the prior administration. By their definition it surely must be treasonous to cater to a former bartender and her progressive pals for personal political gain rather than deal effectively with global realities. If not treasonous, it surely must be immoral.
I’m not concerned, though. All is well. Psaki is on TV telling us they have stolen some rich guys boats, and have taken the bold position of being for equal pay.
Super.
Something that should be kept in mind about members of the House. One representative’s treason is another’s constituent service.
NATO has no purpose. The Cold War is Over. The Soviet Union is defunct, and the much vaunted Russian military is a joke. NATO is a welfare program for the military arms industry. If Europe wants to be a US protectorate, the US should govern their countries.
If Walter Russell Mead and company really believe that NATO is so valuable, they can set-up a GoFundMe page to pay for it. I suspect NATO will be armed with spears and swords.
America’s ability to influence is downstream of its economic might.
Actually, it is financial not economic. Other than military hardware, there is little America produces. As you have noted, Germany has economic might in the EU, and China has economic might, globally.
Soviet military capabilities were systematically exaggerated not just by the Soviets themselves but by our own intelligence agencies. They knew it wasn’t as great as they said it was. But if there wasn’t a near peer enemy why would we need as large an intelligence apparatus as we have?
In addition to the issues you’ve raised my concern with NATO is that the more we spend the less they’ll spend and our military dearly wants to be the only military.
There were a few elite Soviet units that could operate independently, but the Soviet military doctrine was not for individual unit maneuver tactics. They put the conscripts in front with the officers and enforcement squads behind. Basically, it was more dangerous retreating than attacking.
It is a common authoritarian military doctrine. North Korea and the Chinese use it, and when the conscripts can surrender, they do. That is why Saddam Hussein’s army fell apart.
Is the Russian military a joke?
From what has happened in the Ukraine war so far — Russia would win a conventional land war against any member of NATO (except the US).
“One representative’s treason is another’s constituent service.”
But it doesn’t follow that the President need listen or cater to them. Something about the adults being in charge…….. The fact that he does accrues to his own political benefit. Maybe his administration will get serious…………and start using tik tok influencers to get the message out. Oh, wait.
@CuriousOnlooker
To win a military conflict with France, the Russians need to get through Ukraine, and they are not doing a bang-up job there. Then, they need to have and to protect supply lines. Finally, they need enough weapons, munitions, equipment, food, fuel, spare parts, etc. to field the fighting force.
The Russian military doctrine is another issue. Russians can be tenacious fighters, but it takes a lot more to win a military conflict.