Joe Biden Discovers Russia

He should beware of the mysterious pull to befriend or even change Russia by proffers of goodwill.

By
100

The gentle reader might be puzzled or even put off by the title of these notes. After all, Russia featured prominently in the national security briefings Joe Biden received as vice president. Besides, I have it  on very good authority that he made at least two unpublicized trips to Moscow during the first Obama presidency. 

Yet discover Russia Joe Biden will. Not merely because it is a Russia different from the one of the 2009 “reset” or of the “collusion” mythology. It is now his Russia to deal with, his to “manage.” And it is in this new job of Russia’s manager that he might profit from a couple of friendly reminders.   

First, he should beware of the mysterious pull to befriend or even change Russia, whether Soviet or post-Soviet, by proffers of goodwill, disarming candor, investments and, most of all, by putting Moscow at ease by explaining, in Ronald Reagan’s plans for Gorbachev, “what makes America tick.” Such efforts have become a quasi-religious rite of passage for the White House occupants. 

Franklin Roosevelt, who extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union in 1933, was confident that his charm would work on “Uncle Joe” Stalin in Tehran and Yalta.  Dwight Eisenhower had Nikita Khrushchev over for dinner at the White House in 1959. John Kennedy attempted to impress Khrushchev in his first year as president, and Lyndon Johnson talked to Premier Nikolai Kosygin in Glassboro in 1967. Richard Nixon went to Moscow to launch the détente, Jimmy Carter kissed Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna in 1979, Ronald Reagan met Mikhail Gorbachev seven months after Gorbachev had become general secretary, and George H.W. Bush 41 saw Gorbachev on a Soviet cruiser off the coast of Malta 10 months after the inauguration. Bill Clinton practiced “tough love” with his “friend Boris” Yeltsin, George W. Bush met Vladimir Putin five months into his own first term, got “a sense of [Putin’s] soul,” found him “straightforward and trustworthy,” and had him over to the ranch in Texas that same year, and to the Bushes’ country estate in Kennebunkport in July 2007.  

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
100
By
Comments (100)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Frank Vergden

    The 1960s soviet premier referenced should be Alexei Kosygin, not Nikolai.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Saied

    Contrary to the comments below, I think this is a great article and it is something that every American leader needs to be reminded of and take to heart (as the author points out hubris is bipartisan and multi-generational). By all means, engage with them and hold dialogs. Even cooperate with them when it benefits the American interest. But don't expect them to change, or do something different than what is in their interest (or in the case of dictatorships and single-party rule, in the interest of the ruling group). The Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans, the Iranians, and the rest are motivated by regime preservation and enrichment of the elites rather than anything else. They also have hegemonic aspirations. Nice talk, engagement, and reset won't sway them.

    And if you want a scary thought, think about a democratic China created overnight with over 2 billion people being pandered to by politicians.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      A democratic China following the collapse of the PRC could go many ways, but few would not include a rise of more overt Chinese (Han) nationalism or loss of life on a massive scale.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Great piece. Some commentators conflate analyzing and understanding what may motivate the USSR and now Russia to invade or otherwise mistreat neighbors with accepting it. Fear in Russia of invasion over the centuries is a historic fact, but so is believing that Russia is a natural empire and world power, first as the vanguard of orthodox Christianity and Slavic solidarity and later as the leader of socialist revolution. The use of ethnic Russians as an excuse to invade or dominate, sometimes after deporting non-Russians, as in the Baltic states, gives no legitimacy to bald conquest and domination. It is obvious that we must be prudent and not cause WWIII over territories close to Russia. But we don’t have to simply accept Russian aggression or accept their insistence that it isn’t really aggression (whether they believe this or not.). We opposed and denied Soviet conquest of the Baltic states for decades, correctly. When circumstances offered them the chance for liberation we (reluctantly and belatedly during the first Bush administration) helped them gain security against re-conquest. Likewise, we should deny recognition of the conquest of Ukraine, and support its efforts to remain independent. It was a mistake to deny Ukraine defensive weapons during the Obama administration after the US helped convince Ukraine to give up nuclear capability after the fall of the USSR. Persistence and principles are powerful in foreign affairs. Acknowledging the strategic reality that we won’t fight Russia over Ukraine does not require meek acceptance. My Finnish friends (met while a diplomat there) and Baltic and other East Europeans tell us directly how US resisting the Soviet and Russian narratives and aggressions helped those working for liberation. The writer offers wisdom on this issue not out of lack of respect for the President-elect, but having observed the failure of policies which ignored hard realities about Russia and our own principles.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Do you think the Ukraine could have prevented Russia from annexing the Crimea?

      If yes, then what steps could the US and NATO have taken to aid them? How would those steps have played in Russia and the Crimea?

      Do you think bringing the Ukraine into NATO is a good idea for the US or NATO? If yes, then why?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Zero people are talking about invading Russia. Straw man.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Chris Brandow

    It is odd for this to be written with only a single mention of Trump, who has been more deferential to Russia than any president in the last 40 (60?) years.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    "Collision mythology" -- I guess the writer thinks he's writing for Breitbart or something. Nothing else he said after that can be considered credible.

    Collapse
  6. Robert Hernandez

    I think it should be “Donald Trump parleyed” with Putin, not “Donald Trump parlayed.” Unless they were gambling. Just sayin’...

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Logical

    The heading is arrogant. Expects the reader to assume that Biden is either a toddler or incredibly stupid.

    We will see a lot more such wing dribble coming. NRO started it on Nov 4th and TD is just catching up.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      And the Dispatch is not going to be a Biden cheerleader. Will be interesting to see where all of the democrat members here do. They like the anti-Trump stuff, they won’t like the anti-Biden stuff.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Logical

        I don't care how anti-Biden it gets. I'm just questioning the wisdom of the writer starting with something to the effect: let me explain to the child Biden how the real world works.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          Read the second paragraph, which is followed by good historical examples of the reality of Russia being different than we want. Biden is going to be infused with the Obama foreign policy biases because of his own ties and those of the people he is bringing with him. The first bias is natural, he is not Trump, so other nations will like him more.
          And if you read the column, it is clear there is an American bias, grounded in our belief that the inner core of everyone wants to have a say over their own lives (aka: democracy). Russian history of brutal invasion creates a desire in the Russian psyche for strong leadership, a Putin type, even an appreciation for Stalin.
          Roosevelt believed, somewhat like Obama with Iran, that he had some influence over Stalin and FDR froze out Churchill at Yalta.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Pretty sure Biden knows Putin is a murderer.

    This column should have been aimed at

    Donzi he Conzi Trumpski
    Mischka McCommi
    Leningrad Lindsey
    National Rifle Politvuro

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      National Rifle Politivuro. Neat. Though it is quite difficult to own a gun in Russia. Autocratic nations tend to not like guns.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        I do appreciate you saw some humor Bill 😇

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    What should the US have done in response to Russia annexing the Crimea? Nothing kinetic. Anyone who argues differently is irrational IMO.

    Based on a 2001 survey by the Ukraine, ethnic Russians make up something like 60% of the population of the Crimea and around 70% of the population of Sevastopol. It is safe to assume that the majority of those ethnic Russians feel a greater connection to Russia than to the Ukraine or Europe given the history of the Crimea and the fact that Russia’s Black Sea fleet has been based in Sevastopol since its founding. Polling supports that easily reached conclusion, the UN conducted seven polls in the Crimea between 2009 and 2011 on the issue of the Crimea rejoining Russia and between 65 to 70 percent were in favor of the Crimea rejoining Russia.

    Russia made the choice to annex the Crimea after efforts by some in the US and elsewhere in the aughts to bring the Ukraine into NATO. This followed the former Soviet Baltic states joining NATO. The most proximate cause were the protests in the Ukraine which lead to the removal of the pro-Russian government. Bottom line: Russia was unwilling to risk losing their naval base if the Ukraine continued to move closer to the EU and NATO.

    Putin correctly judged that we would be insane to go to war with Russia over their annexation of the Crimea. The Black Sea is their pond and unless Turkey fully supported us then we wouldn’t be able to bring any naval forces into the Black Sea. (If I remember correctly, Turkey didn’t allow US ground forces to invade Iraq through Turkish territory in 2003)

    An important thing to understand about Russia is that they have been invaded many times. Their defense against such invasions is part of their national myth making and history. So, if they feel another Great Power, or Superpower, encroaching on them they will react in predictable ways.

    I think that President Trump is far too trusting and deferential of Putin. But, I also don’t think the US should be poking the bear by trying to bring the Ukraine or Georgia into NATO.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      “It is safe to assume that the majority of those ethnic Russians feel a greater connection to Russia...”
      Why? The US assumed that the connection of Japanese Americans would be stronger with Japan. And any poll conducted in the Ukraine must be suspect for all the reasons polls are suspect. If this relationship was real, it would have manifested itself in the content of the policies of a democratic Ukrainian government.
      Using similar reasoning would have SoCal sent to Mexico.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        Look up all the polling conducted and referendums in the Crimea prior to the annexation.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      James Spiller

      Do you believe that, in general, if you run a country predominantly composed of ethnic group A and you have a neighbor predominantly composed of ethnic group B, but with an enclave of A in a particular region, that this provides a strong justification for the invasion and conquest of that region?

      Most regions of the world have histories of invasions and atrocities. It’s true that Russia is among them, and that Russian propaganda plays heavily on the idea that foreign countries allying and engaging with their neighbors is an aggressive act (it’s not so clear that this is actually the belief of policy makers; if Ukraine was in NATO the invasion of Russia would not become more likely). Do you believe that elsewhere a historical pattern of atrocities provides justification for engaging in atrocities today? For instance, were we wrong to take actions to mitigate genocide in Darfur (an under appreciated Trump achievement), or are we wrong to condemn the oppression of minority groups in China today? In both cases, the oppressing group can point to moments when groups they associate themselves with in history have been oppressed by people they associate with the marginalized groups.

      I agree that it would have been very surprising if anyone had seriously contemplated going to war with Russia, despite both previous world wars having started under similar circumstances, despite America’s (and Russia’s) solemn oath to protect Ukrainian territorial integrity; no one today is remotely close to as hawkish as Chamberlain was. But there’s a lot of space between a direct war and surrender, and we’ve mostly hewed towards the latter. We eventually sold small numbers of weapons to Ukraine, but we took a long time doing so, and we gave trivial amounts of aid.

      We don’t need to do a lot to defeat Putin, who has a military that has regularly been defeated by, eg., Turkey in Armenia and Syria. Whenever Putin’s forces have come up against late 20th century or more modern opposition, they’ve folded. But providing his victims with substantial support has been challenging, in part because Putin provides political support for politicians like Obama (and particularly, within the Obama White House, Biden) who oppose such support and for media and related institutions that provide rationalizations and advocacy for their positions. It’s not materially difficult to provide aid in the billions; we wouldn’t have to give up as much as a tenth of a percent of our GDP. Ukraine doesn’t need an amazing military. I’ve had guns pointed at me by Turkish soldiers. They’re not super professional. If we provided Ukraine with the support to reach Turkish levels of excellence, Putin would be forced into humiliating retreat. We could have the benefits of that world war at an infinitesimal fraction of the cost.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        To answer you first question: no.

        But, the reality on the ground in Crimea was that Russia already had de facto control of it before the annexation. As far as I know no shots were fired when they annexed it. Most residents there welcomed the Russian Marines because in some cases they were family and friends of the residents. Previous polling and referendums showed the amount of support there for reunification with Russia.

        If the Ukraine had been a part of NATO then Putin’s Russia would be far less likely to invade for obvious reasons. But, the reason they choose to annex the Crimea when they did is equally obvious and it was predictable.

        We should not have been and should not be trying to bring Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Some of our current NATO allies oppose those efforts and not without good cause.

        The Black Sea is not going to be welcoming for the US Navy unless Turkey is fully onboard. We couldn’t even get them fully onboard for the invasion of Iraq. (Frankly I think bringing them into NATO was a mistake)

        You claim Russia is a paper tiger. Ok. My reply is that Russian forces would have had local support in the Crimea. If you don’t see the difference that makes then you don’t.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          James Spiller

          If you look at various nationalist movements you will find phantom strength for independence. Scots, Québécois, Kurds, and such will often find much more interest in telling pollsters that they’re keen on independence than turns out to be the case when practical measures are put in place.

          Once in place, they were broadly greeted with positive words. Since people who did otherwise were murdered, I don’t find that as persuasive as you apparently do. Do you also find the positive portrayals of North Korea compelling? That is not to say that there aren’t Quislings who live there, joyful to see ideological companions in power, nor that there aren’t people who are happy to see relatives promoted and such. Not every North Korean expression of patriotism is insincere or unreasonable, either.

          There are many places around the world where the economy is dominated by foreigners; this is a good thing, as it generally integrates developing economies with the world. The existence of a large expat community, though, is not a justification for war. Were it to become so, it seems likely that we would lose a lot of the freedom of movement that people enjoy around the world today. Does Jordan’s acceptance of large numbers of Syrian refugees mean that it would be reasonable for Assad to invade the parts where his countrymen now predominate? Would it be okay for Xi to annex Singapore?

          Is your point about the Black Sea that it would be difficult to supply aid to Ukraine? I believe that there are alternative vectors along which one can travel to Kiev.

          At Nuremberg, the bulk of the convictions were for invasions of countries and regions where the Nazis had local support. It is hard to overstate how fundamental a bedrock of our global order it is that racial solidarity is not a sufficient ground to start wars.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Narwhal

            “Once in place, they were broadly greeted with positive words. Since people who did otherwise were murdered, I don’t find that as persuasive as you apparently do.”

            Please cite evidence of this to support your claim.

            The Russians in the Crimea are not foreigners. Sevastopol was founded by Catherine the Great as the base for Russia’s then new Black Sea fleet. The Russians undertook the most aggressive Russification in their history in Crimea, which included a genocide of the Tartars who were the majority local population there prior to WWII.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      Yes, don’t poke the bear, let him consume what he will.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        What national interest of ours is served by confronting Russia over their annexation of the Crimea? Or by bringing Georgia or the Ukraine into NATO?

        Collapse
    4. Nickson

      Attempting to make either Ukraine or Georgia a NATO member would be an epic foreign policy blunder. It would make the invasion of Iraq—which was the biggest US foreign policy mistake in memory and worse for the country and the world than Vietnam—look like a mere misstep by comparison. So, agreed.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        You don't need to invade anybody to bring them into NATO.

        Collapse
        1. Nickson

          The Russians would view bringing Ukraine into NATO as tantamount to an invasion. Imagine how the US would react if the Warsaw Pact still existed and Mexico joined. See also the Cuban Missile Crisis. These aren’t new issues, and the dynamics haven’t changed all that much, especially since Russia has been going through an irredentist phase since Putin took power.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            James Spiller

            Is it your understanding that the US viewed the Cuban revolution as if it were an invasion of the US?

            I agree that the US viewed it with alarm, but I feel like an invasion of America would have been responded to with a little more vigor than the Bay of Pigs debacle.

            Admitting a country into NATO and positioning nukes there are different issues; putting nukes in Ukraine would be needlessly antagonistic. Maintaining the peace that existed for the decades before the invasion of Ukraine, though, is not.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Bill Nelson

            You are viewing the US and Russia as morally equivalent, they are not.

            Collapse
          3. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Gee, what would Russia do, attack us? You know, like they already did?

            If there was a time for appeasement it was *before* their all-out attack on us and Ukraine.

            Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      " It is safe to assume that the majority of those ethnic Russians feel a greater connection to Russia than to the Ukraine..."

      That's Russian propaganda. Have you ever talk to a former Russian who (escaped) to a Western country? Do you supposed ethnic Uighurs in China would rather be Chinese instead of (say) Americans because they have a "greater connection" to their blood and soil?

      And nobody on this planet is talking about *invading* Russia. We defeated the Soviet Union with not so much as a single boot on their territory. We'll do it again.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        Look every poll conducted in the years leading up to the annexation by any source. Look up the history of previous referendums in Crimea.

        Crimea is similar to Guam.

        Did ethnic Tartars still left in Crimea overwhelming support the referendum? No. But, ethnic Russians did.

        I invite you to read more about it.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Russia is a brutal dictatorship who has repeatedly attacked us and has stolen billions of dollars from us in recent times. They are our number one enemy in the world by far, and their menace effects the lives of every single American.

          If you are right--and I don't concede that but leaving it aside for now--then our task as Americans would be to convince them otherwise. Ukraine has not always been a model democracy (mostly based on Putin's onslaught of propaganda and corruption attacks), but it is far preferable to Russia expanding their empire.

          Collapse
          1. Nickson

            To Russians it’s not expanding their empire but reclaiming the portions lost since the fall of the USSR. It’s their sphere of influence, and we should stay out. Leave Ukraine as a buffer zone.

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pastorfbt

    Kipling - "Make ye no truce with Adam-zad - the Bear that walks like a man"

    Collapse