Biden’s Bombshell About Ukraine

The New York Times’ recent report citing Biden’s unnamed advisors who claimed that American and Ukrainian priorities are increasingly diverging was just extended credence upon the publication of the President’s interview with Time Magazine. While struggling to articulate US policy towards Russia, which included incoherently rambling that he wants to stop it from restoring the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, he dropped the bombshell that peace in Ukraine doesn’t mean letting that country join NATO.

His exact words were as follows: “Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That's what peace looks like. And it doesn't mean NATO, they are part of NATO. It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future. But it is not, if you notice, I was the one when—and you guys did report it at TIME—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.”

This follows Estonian Prime Minister Kallas’ redefinition of victory in Ukraine as it joining NATO even without some of the territory that Kiev claims as its own, which can be interpreted as signifying that the West’s hawkish anti-Russian faction is comparatively softening their stance. Biden’s subsequently published remark about how peace “doesn’t mean they are part of NATO”, which actually preceded Kallas’ since it was said during his interview that was held on 29 May, reaffirms this observation.

Nevertheless, as was cited in the first hyperlinked piece of this article regarding the New York Times’ recent report, this emerging trend within that aforementioned hawkish faction doesn’t extend to all of its members. Some of them are preparing to escalate NATO’s involvement in its proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, and it’s anyone’s guess whether their relatively more responsible counterparts have the ability to rein them in before it’s too late to prevent a Cuban-like crisis in the worst-case scenario.

In any case, it’s a welcome sign that the figurehead of the West’s anti-Russian coalition is walking back his side’s previously implied maximalist stance of Ukraine’s supposedly inevitable membership in NATO, which was one of the reasons why Russia decided to commence its special operation in the first place. Another point to make is that his staff obviously didn’t communicate this with Kallas’ beforehand otherwise she wouldn’t have embarrassed herself by saying that victory is by Ukraine joining NATO.

Even so, it’s worthwhile drawing attention to how that hawkish figure also walked back one of her side’s previously implied maximalist stances by redefining victory as Ukrainian membership in that bloc even without some of the territory that Kiev claims as its own. This suggests that separate hardliners, and presumably the majority of their respective policymaking bureaucracies who are responsible for handling this conflict, have independently realized that it’s finally time to recognize reality.

For as positive as all of this appears to be, the flipside is that ideologically radicalized members of their hardline factions who continue clinging to their side’s two originally implied maximalist objectives – reconquer all Russian-held land and then let Ukraine join NATO – might become dangerously desperate. This explains why some of them are working to escalate NATO’s involvement in this proxy war up to the point of a conventional intervention that could provoke Russia into using tactical nukes in self-defense.

In all likelihood, this increasingly rogue faction will probably achieve some success in worsening tensions by sometime this summer, but that might be their last hurrah since the Sino-Brazilian peace process that those two are aiming to organize during November’s G20 Summit in Rio might freeze the conflict. It’s too far away to predict the contours of any pragmatic compromise, and such an exercise would be moot if the expected escalation spirals out of control to World War III, but it’s still worth keeping in mind.

Kallas and Biden’s back-to-back policy statements, which signify that two of the West’s most hawkish anti-Russian figures accept that Ukraine will lose territory and not join NATO, suggest that their side is becoming amenable to ensuring some of Russia’s demands for freezing the conflict. No signals have been sent on other issues like demilitarization and denazification, but this still represents considerable progress, and it could form the basis for reviving peace talks if the political will can be mustered.

Looking forward, it’s possible that this summer’s expected escalation could be the West’s last hurrah before it formally abandons the goal of reconquering all of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory and then letting it join NATO. In that event, the West might not agree to all of Russia’s peace terms, but it could become much more amenable to some of them, thus enabling the resumption of peace talks even if they’re only between the US and Russia this time instead of between Russia and Ukraine like last time.

That would actually be ideal since Ukraine is just the West’s proxy and has no independent capability to negotiate on its own, which was proven by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sabotaging spring 2022’s draft peace deal. The US is realizing that Ukraine is running out of troops since its forcible conscription policies are incapable of replacing its losses while NATO as a whole can’t compete with Russia in the “race of logistics” as proven by a recent report about Moscow’s military-industrial complex.

According to the Bain & Company consulting firm, Russia is producing shells three times faster than the West at a literally one-quarter of the price. NATO would certainly have been aware of this the whole time and that could have influenced Kallas and Biden into walking back their side’s maximalist objectives. It remains to be seen whether their words turn into any tangible policy changes, but they’re still positive developments even if only superficial ones for the time being since they prove that the West has lost.