The Inconvenient Truth

The commander-in-chief should not allow himself to miss the mark when using his own ammunition: words.

Joe Biden has a point. Vladimir Putin is the problem, the cause and the explanation for this infamous war. But: dead dogs don’t bite? It’s doubtful, despite what the president of the United States has said. First, because no one knows how a political figure who is protected beyond imagination is going to end up, both from outside attacks and from the only real danger — his own environment.

If Putin is the cause, as long as there is war, one must speak to him in search of peace. The statement —“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” — is morally impeccable and politically inconvenient. This death warrant will be boring into the tyrant’s brain, with the memory of Moammar Gadhafi trapped in a sewer and Osama bin Laden shot down in his bed by order of Barack Obama, with Biden at his side.

Moral judgments, ideological reproach and political commentaries, however accurate they may be, are not what’s expected from a ruler, and even less so from one who portrays himself as the leader of the free world. As well as accurate, his words should be useful. This declaration has not, unlike previous statements of his, labeled Putin a murderer and a butcher.

The inconvenient truth doesn’t just upset Putin’s defensive reflexes, but the entire Putinist system. Assuming Putin was the only reason and explanation for every wrongdoing, it’s not clear that whoever replaces him would be much better. There could always be a worse option. Whoever it is, we will have to talk to them as well.

Biden has paraded out the failed Bush Doctrine, which promoted regime change in autocratic countries and their replacement by democratic governments through military invasions and bombings. It’s logical that his friends and allies have thrown up their hands in frustration. It complicates negotiations with Moscow, contributes to prolonging the war and evokes memories of the systematic failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt.… It’s accompanied by a terrible theory that also applies to Russia: The dictator who renounces his nuclear weapon is lost (Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi) and the one who doesn’t (Iran and North Korea) is saved.

Putin has learned his lesson well. He believes he is entitled to change the regime in Kyiv, since Ukraine naively gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for Russia’s recognition of its borders and territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. As for liquidating or driving him out of the Kremlin, he has already anticipated such an eventuality and has, from the first day of the invasion, brandished the nuclear weapon at his disposal.

One off-script statement can tarnish a good speech in support of Ukraine and even a trip as momentous for NATO as Biden’s trip to Brussels and Poland. The commander-in-chief should not allow himself to miss the mark when firing his own ammunition: words.