Joe Biden

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Battered Biden gets chance to change political narrative as Breyer retires

      by

      Battered Biden gets chance to change political narrative as Breyer retiresAnalysis: president faces high expectations as he prepares make one of his most consequential decisions In his spare time, Justice Stephen Breyer enjoyed taking the bench at humorous “mock trials” of characters such as Macbeth and Richard III for Washington’s Shakespeare Theatre Company. The case usually turned on epic battles over succession.Now Washington is about to be consumed by the question of who will inherit Breyer’s crown following his reported decision to retire from the US supreme court. At 83, he is its oldest member, one of three liberals outnumbered by six conservatives.This is a perfectly timed political gift for Joe Biden, aware that choosing a supreme court justice is one of the most consequential decisions that any president can make.After a year in the White House, Biden was limping with a stalled legislative agenda, a tenacious pandemic and Vladimir Putin threatening Ukraine. He was a tired brand in desperate need of a relaunch, a tough ask at the age of 79.Biden ‘stands by’ pledge to nominate Black woman to supreme court, White House says – liveRead moreBreyer has provided it, instantly changing the conversation. “This has to feel like a political elixir right now,” observed Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC’s Meet the Press Daily show.A vacancy on the highest court enables Biden to rally the Democratic base and begin to cement a legacy that, despite early ambitions, had recently looked to be in jeopardy. Although the ideological balance of the court will not change, Biden could choose a young liberal who will serve for decades.The Senate, which must approve his choice, is divided between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans with Vice-President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker vote. Breyer has given it enough time to confirm the president’s pick before the midterm elections could shift the balance of power.Democratic divisions have been on display of late but a supreme court vacancy typically unites a party like nothing else. Even senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who broke ranks over the Build Back Better plan and voting rights, have voted for every Biden nominee to the lower courts so far. Both will presumably regard this confirmation as an easy way to win back some favour with angry liberals.Not for the first time, however, Biden has raised expectations. At a debate in the 2020 Democratic primary, he declared: “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the supreme court, to make sure we, in fact, get every representation.” His judicial appointments so far have been historically diverse, and Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters after the news of Breyer’s imminent retirement broke that Biden “certainly stands by” his promise.The upshot is that if he now nominates anyone other than a Black woman, there will be disappointment on the left. Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive group Stand Up America, said on Wednesday: “President Biden promised to appoint the country’s first-ever Black woman supreme court justice, and he must make good on that promise.“The president and vice-president’s voters are watching eagerly to see that he follows through and makes history with his first supreme court nomination.”Potential candidates include the US circuit judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California supreme court justice Leondra Kruger, civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill and US district judge Michelle Childs, a favourite of the South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, a Biden ally.Notably, when Jackson was confirmed last year to the influential US court of appeals for the DC circuit, often seen as a springboard to supreme court, the Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted with Democrats in favour.Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond, said: “I expect that the Democrats will remain united, as they have so far, because all Democratic members, including Senators Manchin and Sinema, have voted for all of Biden’s lower court nominees.“Most GOP senators have voted against many Biden lower court nominees. The major exception is Lindsey Graham, who has voted for many Biden lower court nominees in committee and on the floor. Senators Collins and Murkowski have also voted to confirm a number of Biden lower court nominees. If the Democrats vote together, they do not need GOP votes.”It remains an open question whether a handful of Republicans might back Biden’s nominee given the politicisation of the court in recent years – from Republicans blocking Barack Obama’s pick Merrick Garland to the rancour that surrounded Donald Trump’s three appointments, and the court’s imminent decision on the constitutional right to abortion.In an ominous statement on Wednesday, Graham said: “If all Democrats hang together – which I expect they will – they have the power to replace Justice Breyer in 2022 without one Republican vote in support. Elections have consequences, and that is most evident when it comes to fulfilling vacancies on the supreme court.”Don’t call Joe Biden a failed president yet | Gary GerstleRead moreMeanwhile, Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, fired the first shots of a partisan battle to come. “The left bullied Justice Breyer into retirement and now it will demand a justice who rubber-stamps its liberal political agenda,” she said. “And that’s what the Democrats will give them, because they’re beholden to the dark money supporters who helped elect them.”Yet it is Republicans who waged a multi-generational project to tilt the court in their favour with the help of the Federalist Society, which created a pipeline of young, ideologically rightwing lawyers. Trump’s release during the 2016 election of a shortlist of judges for the court helped him secure the conservative base; his three justices are likely to be his most lasting legacy.Democrats were criticised for being slow to wake up to the threat and lacking similar aggression. Now, thanks to Breyer’s retirement, they find themselves with the unaccustomed comfort of having political momentum on their side.TopicsJoe BidenUS supreme courtLaw (US)DemocratsRepublicansUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Coming to Terms With the Game Being Played on the Russia-Ukraine Border

      by

      Over at least the past two months, US President Joe Biden’s White House has successfully inculcated in nearly all of the corporate media its firm belief that Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, has made the decision to mount a military invasion of Ukraine. Most of the articles published on the subject at best wonder about only two things. When will the invasion take place? And how far will it go?

      The Pentagon’s Latest Glorious Failure

      READ MORE

      Since the question of whether he will invade has been put aside, the pundits are asking themselves a different question. It concerns President Putin’s motives. Does Putin feel he needs to overthrow the Ukrainian government and reestablish a friendly regime that will serve as a buffer state between Russia and Europe? Or will he simply be content with controlling the Russian-speaking eastern parts of Ukraine, effectively destabilizing the current regime and thus preventing the possibility of the nation’s integration into NATO?

      Given the apparently Beltway mantra that an invasion is imminent and that the West insists on Ukraine’s right to do what it wants, including joining NATO, it was therefore surprising to read in The New York Times this week that people in the White House — in this case, people who usually are removed from communication with the media — may have made a different assessment. In an article whose title “War May Loom, but Are There Offramps?” is an acknowledgment of the level of uncertainty that surrounds the current geopolitical standoff, David E. Sanger reveals that “even President Biden’s top aides say they have no idea if a diplomatic solution, rather than the conquest of Ukraine, is what Mr. Putin has in mind.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Like most Russians, and unlike most Americans, Putin knows something about how the game of chess is played. Geopolitics for Russians has always been a game of chess. Curiously, Western commentators instead seem to believe that the game logic Putin respects is similar to that of American football or basketball. They incessantly talk about Russia’s “playbook.” These are sports where you assign roles, plan actions and then try to execute. However complex the configurations may come, plays in a playbook follow a logic of going from step one to step two. Chess requires a different form and level of thinking.

      It is reasonable to suppose that the Russian-American AP reporter Vladimir Isachenkov has a good understanding of Russian politics and Russian culture. Here is how he describes the current situation: “Amid fears of an imminent attack on Ukraine, Russia has further upped the ante by announcing more military drills in the region.

      Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Up the ante:

      A metaphor from poker that when used correctly means to increase the initial stakes of a game, the amount that must be advanced by each player to enter the game. It is often used incorrectly as an equivalent of another poker term: call the bluff.  

      Contextual Note

      Isachenkov predictably foresees the invasion authorities in the West almost seem to desire, and not only in Washington. This week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson forecasted Putin’s “plan for a lightning war.” Translated into German, that means Blitzkrieg, a term Johnson preferred to avoid using, though the innuendo was clear. The point of the entire effort to predict a Russian invasion is to instill the idea that Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler.

      Russians, however, are not known for practicing Blitzkrieg. Chess players prefer to construct their game patiently through a series of maneuvers that look at a long-term evolution. They challenge their opponent’s understanding of an evolving situation and are extremely sensitive to the layout on the chessboard, with the intent of making a checkmate inevitable. Americans, in particular, tend to go for strikes and are always hoping for a lucky strike.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Perhaps because Isachenkov believes Americans may not understand such strategies, instead of looking to the subtlety of chess for his gaming metaphor or even to Putin’s documented experience of judo, he draws his literary inspiration from another quintessential American game, poker. He tells us Russia has “upped the ante.” In so doing, he misinterprets not only the meaning of Putin’s moves but even the practice of poker itself. Isachenkov appears to interpret “up the ante” as meaning “increase the pressure” or “raise the temperature.” He didn’t realize that poker offers a better metaphor for Putin’s actions: calling Biden’s bluff.

      No respectable Western commentator would frame the situation in those terms. It would mean acknowledging that the US resorts to the ignoble art of bluffing. Bluffing implies hypocrisy. The US has only one goal: to make the world more equitable and to help democracy prevail. Secretary of State Antony Blinken defined the mission in these terms: “It’s about the sovereignty and self-determination of Ukraine and all states,” before adding that “at its core, it’s about Russia’s rejection of a post-Cold War Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.” And, just to make things clear: “It’s about whether Ukraine has a right to be a democracy.”

      Isachenkov points out that Russia “has refused to rule out the possibility of military deployments to the Caribbean, and President Vladimir Putin has reached out to leaders opposed to the West.” He calls this “military muscle-flexing” but perhaps fails to see this for the theater it is meant to be, coming from the president of a nation that gave us Pushkin, Gogol, Chekhov and Gorki. Evoking the Caribbean is Putin’s way of alluding to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It may especially be meant to call Americans’ attention to the idea that powerful nations do not look kindly to discovering an adverse military nuclear presence at its borders. If John F. Kennedy could force Nikita Khrushchev to back down 60 years ago, Putin should be allowed to do the same to Biden today.

      Historical Note

      If Vladimir Putin is calling Joe Biden’s bluff, what is the nature of that bluff? In the simplest terms, Biden’s bluff is the latest version of what President George H.W. Bush, after the demise of the Soviet Union, proudly called the “new world order.” After defeating Donald Trump, Biden announced to his allies in Europe that “America is back,” which was his way of saying “my version of America is great again,” the version that uses its military reach to protect its business interests across the globe.

      In a New York Times op-ed dated January 24, national security expert, Fiona Hill, who served under presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, claims that Putin’s aim is not just to annex all or part of Ukraine. He isn’t looking at taking a pawn or even a bishop. He has the whole chessboard in view. Hill is undoubtedly correct about Putin’s real purpose, that he “wants to evict the United States from Europe.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      “Right now,” Hill writes, “all signs indicate that Mr. Putin will lock the United States into an endless tactical game, take more chunks out of Ukraine and exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union.” In other words, the current posture of the United States is offering Putin a winning hand (poker) or setting itself up for a checkmate.

      Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who knows something about the stakes associated with warfare, makes a complementary point concerning the nature of the risk for the US: “It is another thing altogether to speak only of the pain sanctions would cause Russia, with little thought, if any, to the real consequences that will be paid on the home front.” If events get out of control, as is likely if there is no diplomatic solution, the effects on the West’s economy will be far more dramatic than any damage that can be inflicted on Russia through sanctions. 

      The US has refused to listen to the arguments not just of Putin, but also of foreign policy wonks such as John Mearsheimer. They believe that even the daydream of linking Ukraine with NATO crosses the reddest of lines, not just for Putin but for Russia itself. Failing to take that into account while insisting that it’s all a question of respecting an independent nation’s right to join a hostile military alliance represents a position that makes war inevitable.

      In a 2021 Geopolitical Monitor article with the title “Do We Live in Mearsheimer’s World?” Mahammad Mammadov cited “Mearsheimerian realism,” which he claims “sees Ukraine’s future as a stable and prosperous state in its being a ‘neutral buffer’ between multiple power poles, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Accordingly, Russia is still a declining power with a one-dimensional economy and need not be contained.”

      That seems like a solution most people in the West could live with… apart from the military-industrial complex, of course. And Democratic presidents seeking to prove they are not weaklings before this year’s midterm elections.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t call Joe Biden a failed president yet | Gary Gerstle

      by

      Don’t call Joe Biden a failed president yetGary GerstleProgressives today can look to the American past for examples of political movements transitioning from short-term defeat to long-term success Things are not looking good for Joe Biden. At his 20 January news conference, Joe Biden admitted that Build Back Better, the $2tn social infrastructure bill, was dead. That failure, in combination with Biden’s botched effort the week before to energize the campaign for voting rights, have inclined many progressives to join the chorus of centrist and rightwing voices pronouncing Biden a failed president.There are good reasons for disappointment in progressive ranks, especially as Donald Trump continues to thunder on about the “big lie” and as the country barrels toward a 2022 midterm that Republicans, in multiple states, are trying to rig in their favor. But progressives should refrain both from heaping excessive blame on Biden himself and from losing hope. Let’s take a step back.Led by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House, progressives in 2021 achieved the kind of influence in the Democratic party that they had not enjoyed since the 1930s and 1940s. But their party’s hold on Congress was weak. The Senate was evenly split between Democrats and Republicans; a vote from Vice-President Kamala Harris was required to put the Democrats into majority territory. The House, meanwhile, had a Democratic majority of only nine (222 to 213). By contrast, the transformative New Deal that Franklin D Roosevelt launched in 1933 rested on overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress (58 to 37 in the Senate and 313 to 122 in the House). Had FDR been saddled with Biden’s bare majorities, the legendary accomplishments of his 100 days – 15 separate pieces of legislation passed by Congress between March and July 1933 – never would have come to pass.The precarity of Democratic party power in Congress in 2021 caused some to counsel caution. But progressives made the opposite calculation: carpe diem – seize the day. The opportunity for transforming American society might be fleeting, they reckoned, but it was real. Biden proved surprisingly receptive to progressive appeals. He had not become a socialist like Sanders; but he had become convinced that America stood at what he liked to call “an inflection point”. The decade following the Great Recession of 2008-2009 had unleashed powerful new forces in politics, on both the right and the left. A simple reassertion of Clinton and Obama formulas for Democratic rule, Biden now believed, would no longer suffice. A new kind of politics was needed. The pandemic both demanded bold thinking and quick and decisive government action.Across the first six months of its tenure, the Biden administration more than met this challenge. The $2tn American Rescue Plan passed in early March 2021 funded massive government investments in vaccine production and distribution, stimulated economic growth and employment, and markedly reduced childhood poverty. The pandemic began to ease as the Biden administration easily blew past its goal of inoculating 100 million Americans in its first 100 days. Meanwhile, a $1tn physical infrastructure bill with bipartisan support was on its way toward passage in the balky Senate. This was the heady atmosphere in which the ambitious Build Back Better bill took shape. Congress had never considered a bill of this scope before. It would, if passed, propel the United States into a future of clean energy, sharply reduced child poverty, vastly improved services for elder care, free community college, affordable housing, expanded healthcare, and immigration reform.The second six months of the Biden administration, however, were as dispiriting as the first six months had been inspiring. The arrival of the Delta and Omicron variants – along with the refusal of large numbers of Americans to get vaccinated – allowed the pandemic to rage once again. The White House miscalculated the short-term dangers that a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan entailed. Inflation exploded as the pandemic generated both supply-chain problems and profound shifts in the structure of demand for goods and services.It is hardly surprising that Build Back Better now began to receive closer scrutiny: why so many different initiatives in one bill? Which of these programs could the government truly afford? Would passage of the bill further stoke inflation? Much commentary has focused on the villainous figure of Joe Manchin, ultimately the lone Democratic senator who refused to give his assent to the bill. But when a single senator can hold up and ultimately scuttle such an important piece of legislation, we must point a finger not just at the man himself but at the underlying vulnerability of a party with no true Senate majority embarking on an audacious project of political and social transformation.The tasks for Biden and the progressives are now somewhat different. Biden must be practical and disciplined. He needs to rescue two or three components of Build Back Better, with clean energy and early childhood care being the most important. He must get out more into the public to trumpet his achievements. His administration should also blanket the entire country with signs declaring “Biden’s $1tn infrastructure project at work for you here.” I have yet to hear from anyone who has seen such a sign.Finally, Biden ought to strengthen the resolve of the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to bring the full weight of the law down upon the January 6 insurrectionists. Two weeks ago, Garland’s Department of Justice charged multiple leaders of the Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy, a serious charge. Several Oath Keepers have agreed to cooperate, which will obligate them to tell justice department prosecutors everything they know about which individuals in the Republican party and the White House schemed with them to plan the January 6 coup.Former members of the Trump administration and their allies now have reason to fear that they, too, may be charged with seditious conspiracy. Not coincidentally, the number of Republicans willing to criticize Trump publicly is rising. Trump will hit back hard yet again, seeking to reassert his control over the Republican party. But Biden can use the incipient disarray in the party and the threat of resurgent Trumpism to his advantage. If anything can persuade independents to cast their votes for Democrats in the 2022 elections, it will be their fear that Trump, and the authoritarian movement he leads, poses the most serious threat to the future of America and its democracy.For progressives, a longer-term recalibration is in order. Despite their disappointment over the failure of Build Back Better and voting rights legislation, they have to organize for the 2022 election as energetically as they did in 2020. But they must also develop a post-2022 strategy focused on building their strength beyond metropolitan centers and corridors, given how weighted the American political system is against big cities and toward small towns and rural areas.Progressives today can look to the American past for examples of political movements transitioning from short-term defeat to long-term success. Consider the Democrats who built the New Deal order in the 1930s and the Republicans who established the neoliberal order in the 1980s. Long before they came to power, these earlier generations of left and right crusaders had coalesced into political formations that possessed an underlying ideology and a set of institutions bringing together like-minded activists, intellectuals, elected officials, donors and media influencers. Actually gaining power, however, required something more: the ability to win consistently at the polls, to amass significant majorities in Congress, and to control the presidency for long stretches. That level of political achievement took time, sustained efforts at mobilization, and a willingness to endure multiple electoral defeats.In progressive politics today, one can discern a similarity to the early phases of these two previous movements. Progressives have intellectuals, thinktanks, influential media platforms, extensive policy and personal networks, and now, thanks to Biden, a presence in numerous government agencies. These activists understand the importance of winning elections; they played an indispensable role in the electoral mobilization in 2020 that drove Trump from office and Mitch McConnell from his post as Senate majority leader.The Republican party would not be working so hard to suppress votes today if it did not discern in this 2020 performance the possible awakening of a Democratic juggernaut. But the progressive movement is still young and vulnerable; across the nation as a whole, its electoral base is geographically narrow – too coastal or too metropolitan, or both.Dislodging the Republicans from national power over sustained stretches of time means winning not just the White House and Congress but statehouses, where rules governing all elections in America – local, state and national – have long been made. Not an easy task, to be sure, especially given the Republican party’s ruthless will to power. But, then, this would not be the first time that progressives, faced with adversity, steeled themselves for the long march.
      Gary Gerstle is Mellon professor of American history emeritus at Cambridge and a Guardian US columnist. His new book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, will be published in April
      TopicsJoe BidenOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Joe Biden appears to mock Fox News reporter in hot mic moment – video

      by

      Joe Biden has been caught on a hot mic apparently referring to a Fox News reporter as a ‘stupid son of a bitch’. As journalists left a meeting, the Fox News White House reporter Peter Doocy asked whether Biden thought inflation was a political liability ahead of the midterms. ‘No, it’s a great asset – more inflation,’ Biden appeared to respond sarcastically over a din of reporters shouting questions, apparently not realizing his microphone was still on. ‘What a stupid son of a bitch,’ he added

      US news – blog updates  More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden appears to insult Fox News reporter over inflation question

      by

      Joe Biden appears to insult Fox News reporter over inflation questionPresident caught on mic seemingly swearing at Peter Doocy as journalists left a news conference00:24Joe Biden was caught on a hot mic appearing to insult the Fox News journalist Peter Doocy, seemingly calling him a “stupid son of a bitch” after Doocy posed a question about US inflation.Biden calls Peter Doocy a “stupid son of a bitch” Appeared to forget the hot mic pic.twitter.com/FtelbODMO0— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) January 24, 2022
      “Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?” the reporter asked the president as journalists were leaving the room at the end of an event at the White House on Monday.Biden responded: “No, it’s a great asset – more inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch.”The mic was right in front of Biden, but it appeared as if he were making the remark to himself or that he might have thought the mic had been turned off.The remark came at the end of a White House Competition Council meeting where officials provided an update on efforts to combat inflation, which recently hit 7%. Biden, who was also fielding questions about the growing crisis in Ukraine, had said he only wanted to address questions on the topic of the council, which Doocy appeared to be covering in his inquiry. The White House has said this month that inflation will only be a temporary problem, but some Democrats have worried about the potential for longer-term political consequences.‘Enemy of the people’: Trump’s war on the media is a page from Nixon’s playbookRead moreThe clip of Biden’s remark quickly went viral on social media, with some pointing out that Biden days earlier had muttered, “What a stupid question,” in response to another Fox News reporter’s question about Russia. Doocy went live on Fox News soon after and joked about the insult, saying: “Nobody has factchecked him yet.”Last year, Biden apologized to a CNN reporter after snapping at one of her questions. As vice-president, Biden got caught on a hot mic telling Barack Obama, “This is a big fucking deal!” after he signed healthcare legislation.Despite Monday’s gaffe, Biden’s first year in office has marked a return to civility after a tumultuous four years under Donald Trump, who labelled the media the “enemy of the American people”. Biden has described journalists as “indispensable” to democracy, although press access to him has been limited. The president held fewer than 10 formal news conferences during his first year, far less than Trump or Obama. His press conference last week, however, was longer than any given by either predecessor.TopicsJoe BidenFox NewsTV newsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Biden doctrine: Ukraine gaffe sums up mixed year of foreign policy

      by

      The Biden doctrine: Ukraine gaffe sums up mixed year of foreign policy On Russia and Putin, the president said the quiet part loud. Re-engagement has been welcomed but the exit from Afghanistan was a disaster. Analysts see much to do to rebuild US credibilityJoe Biden marked his first anniversary in office with a gaffe over Ukraine that undid weeks of disciplined messaging and diplomatic preparation.Russian ships, tanks and troops on the move to Ukraine as peace talks stallRead moreThe president’s suggestion that a “minor incursion” by Russia might split Nato over how to respond sent the White House into frantic damage limitation mode.Officials insisted Biden had been referring to cyber attacks and paramilitary activities and not Russian troops crossing the border. That failed to entirely calm nerves in Kyiv and other European capitals, especially as Biden also raised eyebrows by predicting that Vladimir Putin would “move in” to Ukraine because “he has to do something” and would probably prevail.The analysis of Nato’s weaknesses and Putin’s intentions was no doubt widely shared but Biden had said the quiet part loud, contradicting what his own officials had been saying. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, had just been telling Foreign Policy that one of the great successes of the Biden administration was that “the 30 allies of Nato [were] speaking with one voice in the Russia-Ukraine crisis”.Aides who have shadowed Biden through his long career as senator and vice-president are used to his prolix ways, his tendency to draw on his deep foreign policy expense to over-explain, but the stakes are immeasurably greater as a president, trying to stare down Putin as Europe stands on the threshold of war.The stumble distracted from some of the foreign policy achievements of Biden’s first year – the mending of transatlantic ties, the bolstering of US support for the embattled government in Kyiv and the development of a consistent policy towards Moscow – which combined a openness to talks with a readiness to inflict punitive measures and a refusal to be divided from Nato allies.None of those gains were a given in US foreign policy after four years of Donald Trump, a president who frequently put domestic political and business advantage ahead of strategic national interests, particularly when it came to Russia. Mending alliances, returning to multilateralism and restoring predictability to US policy after the volatile Trump era is widely regarded as Biden’s greatest success so far in foreign policy.His claim on taking office that “America is back” was backed up by a quick deal to extend the New Start treaty in Russia and thereby salvage the only major arms control agreement to survive Trump. The US rejoined the Paris climate accord and the United Nations Human Rights Council, re-engaged with major powers in nuclear talks with Iran, and convened a virtual Summit for Democracy in December.All those steps were in line with a broad strategy which Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Institute of International Affairs, describes as a Biden doctrine.“I think it’s a strategic reorientation towards competition/conflict with China and, the other side of that coin, strengthening relationships with partners in Europe and in Asia, both bilaterally and multilaterally,” Tocci said. “And relying less on the military instrument in order to pursue US foreign policy goals.”The Ukraine stumble was not the first time that strategy has been impaired by its execution. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was intended to be a decisive break with the past, extricating the US from its longest war so it could focus on its most important geopolitical challenge, the rapid rise of China.The departure turned to chaos when the Afghan army, which the US had spent $83m and 20 years trying to build, collapsed in a few days in the face of a Taliban offensive. The scenes of desperate Afghans trying to cling to departing US planes, some dying in the attempt, are an inescapable part of Biden’s legacy.Biden has argued he was boxed in by the Doha agreement the Trump administration signed with the Taliban in February 2020, under which the US was due to leave by May 2021. Biden was able to stretch that deadline by four months but maintained that staying any longer would have led to renewed attacks on US troops.Nathan Sales, an acting under secretary of state in the Trump administration, argued that the Doha deal was no longer binding on Biden, and he could have left a force to maintain US leverage.“When one side of an agreement breaches it serially and flagrantly like the Taliban did, I think the Biden administration would have been well within its rights to say: ‘We’re not bound by it either,’” said Sales, now a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.Current US officials argue that whether the US declared the Taliban had been in violation or not, there would have been renewed attacks on US troops, forcing a decision to cut and run or send large-scale reinforcements. The status quo, they say, was not sustainable.Putin, a ‘rogue male’ on the rampage, threatens to start a war no one wants | Simon Tisdall Read moreEven considering the constraints imposed by the previous administration, the withdrawal was a fiasco. US planners failed to anticipate the speed of the collapse even though a government watchdog, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, had warned in 2021 that without US contractors to service planes and helicopters, the Afghan air force would no longer be able to function, depriving troops on the ground of a key advantage.For Afghans who worked with the US and its allies, and for the country’s women and girls, the departure seemed like a betrayal, raising a serious question mark over the administration’s claims to have restored human rights to the heart of US foreign policy.Its record in that regard was already mixed.On one hand, the administration had taken a firm stand against China’s mass persecution of Muslim Uyghurs, declaring it a genocide. Furthermore, the assembly of a coalition of some 130 countries to establish a global minimum tax was, according to Matt Duss, foreign affairs adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, “a step toward addressing global economic inequality which is one of the drivers of conflict and authoritarianism”.“It’s an important first step and a courageous one,” Duss said. He also pointed to the sanctions against surveillance companies like the Israeli NSO group, whose software was used by authoritarian regimes to target dissidents.“​​That was a very consequential move, and there has been a massive pressure campaign trying to get them to roll it back, but they’ve stood firm,” he said.However, the steps taken against the Saudi monarchy for the heavy civilian toll from its air war in Yemen and the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi felt well short of what human rights campaigners and progressive Democrats had hoped for. The Biden administration continued to sell Riyadh substantial quantities of advanced weaponry.“We’ve basically returned to the traditional US approach of supporting human rights in countries that don’t buy our weapons,” Duss said. “I very much hope that changes.”‘A lot of bad blood’Another way in which the manner of the US exit from Afghanistan undermined the administration’s wider objectives was by alienating European allies, who felt left out of a decision they were obliged to follow.“The pull-out really caused a lot of bad blood unnecessarily,” Elisabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said. “You can call it the root cause of unhappiness within the alliance.”The formation in September of Aukus, a partnership with the UK and Australia to help the latter acquire nuclear-powered submarines, was another sweeping move in the pivot towards Asia.Confusion over UK claim that Putin plans coup in UkraineRead moreBut the protagonists had omitted to inform France, who discovered on the same day that their contract to sell Australia diesel submarines had been cancelled. Biden was forced to acknowledge the “clumsy” way it had been handled, and the rift clouded bilateral relations for months.Putin’s threat to Ukraine has helped rally the transatlantic alliance but as Biden revealed in his own public reflections, there are still serious divisions below the surface, limiting his room for manoeuvre.The president’s freedom of action on other global issues, like making progress in climate action or finding a nuclear compromise with Iran, will be hindered still further if Republicans gain control of Congress in this year’s midterm elections. In that case, the administration’s record until now, mixed as it is, may prove to be the high point of the Biden doctrine.TopicsJoe BidenBiden administrationUS foreign policyUS national securityUS militaryUS politicsUkrainefeaturesReuse this content More