Quite a few of us in the national security space have questioned the wisdom of the Biden Administration’s so openly bragging about the degree to which it has helped the Ukrainian military kill Russians. Dan Drezner joins in after rightly praising the successes:
The Biden administration has responded admirably to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through both word and deed. Before the war, U.S. intelligence officials were quite vocal about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans, in an effort to wrong-foot his orchestrated invasion. During the war, U.S. officials have conducted real-time statecraft to help shore up the alliance supporting Ukraine. U.S. intelligence has also clearly provided assistance to Ukrainians, helping in their defense of their country.
All of this merits praise. It is worth remembering that in February the widespread expectation was that Russia would be in Kyiv quickly and Putin would have proved Russia’s military might on the global stage. The opposite has occurred, mostly because of Ukraine’s ability and willingness to resist but also the U.S. ability to bolster that resistance. More than two months into the conflict, Russia’s ability to sustain any offensive seems doubtful. If a lesson learned from this war is that great powers can no longer expect to fight and win easy wars, that makes great-power war less likely in the medium term.
There are some on the Realist camp who argue that these policies have been wrongheaded, in that they have prolonged the conflict, led to a lot of dead Ukrainians, and risk further escalation. Neither Dan nor I agree with those criticisms. While I continue to wonder what the ultimate end state will be, assisting the Ukrainians against Russian aggression is the right thing to do both morally and because weakening Putin’s forces and global standing is a strategic win.
As the war has proceeded, U.S. officials have continued to be chatty. The thing is, they have started to say things that threaten to undermine U.S. foreign policy, particularly with respect to U.S. goals in assisting Ukraine. As noted previously, President Biden said in March, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Last month, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Ramping up war aims like this — especially when the United States is not, repeat not, fighting the war — is rash. There is a reason the White House had to walk Biden’s words back.
This past week, anonymous U.S. officials again got chatty with the press. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that senior American officials said, “The United States has provided intelligence about Russian units that has allowed Ukrainians to target and kill many of the Russian generals who have died in action in the Ukraine war … The targeting help is part of a classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine.” This raises the philosophical question of whether something is really classified if U.S. officials are telling reporters all about it.
I’ve discussed these before and concur fully. Of course we’ve been supplying intelligence. Of course we want to see Russia weakened. Putin knows these things. But actually saying them out loud serves no obvious purpose.
A day later, U.S. officials were even more loquacious. The Washington Post, New York Times and NBC News all reported that U.S. officials said the United States played a critical supporting role in helping Ukrainian forces sink the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, the Moskva. As NBC’s reporters put it, U.S. officials were “confirming an American role in perhaps the most embarrassing blow to Vladimir Putin’s troubled invasion of Ukraine.”
It should not take an expert in international affairs to realize that there is little upside in bragging about these kinds of activities to the press. Sure, it might play well in domestic circles. The diplomatic effects, however, are counterproductive. The Russian military is already aware of U.S. activities, so broadcasting them does not intimidate the enemy. Instead, it exaggerates the U.S. role in an interstate war with one declared nuclear power and invites retaliation in the future. When it comes to aiding a belligerent during a war without not crossing any tacitly understood red lines, doing is much better than talking.
This is exactly right. Where Dan and I disagree, at least at the margins, is here:
Some argued that these news stories were part of a planned information campaign, but the U.S. government’s response suggests otherwise. Pentagon officials disputed both the New York Times story on targeting Russian generals as well as the raft of stories regarding the Moskva. On Saturday, Politico’s National Security Daily quoted a U.S. official as saying, “Someone is eager to take credit, but it’s not helpful.” Politico’s reporters added: “Others we spoke to revealed there’s an internal freakout over the stream of stories, though it’s unclear exactly who is feeding reporters the juicy nuggets. Instead of boasting, a parade of administration officials have denied the direct link between the shared intelligence and targets.”
Were it just Biden—whose propensity for saying things he shouldn’t has been both charming and exasperating for decades—I would chalk it up to a lack of discipline. Ditto if it was Biden and some anonymous leaks. But it’s happening constantly, including in public appearances by top national security players. It seems to me to be part of the same strategy as the highly unusual but effective release of a stream of intelligence on Russian activities leading up to the invasion, publicly bragging about each escalation of US aid, and the like. The administration is clearly signaling that, while we will not directly fight Russia militarily, we’ll do everything short of that.
Dan and I agree that this is more likely to backfire than do good. But it sure seems like Biden, Austin, and others disagree and are doing this consciously rather than because they can’t help themselves. Maybe they think humiliating Putin will hasten his demise. Maybe they think being so brazen in their declarations will deter Chinese aggression against Taiwan. Alas, they have not seen fit to read me in on their thinking.
Regardless, Dan is right here:
I have been pretty skeptical of claims that U.S. assistance will lead to an escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine. That does not mean it is a good idea to needlessly poke a wounded bear. Saying things like the United States is “fundamentally at war” with Russia is the kind of overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric that executive and legislative branch officials should avoid.
Now, it happens that the United States is fundamentally at war with Russia—we would certainly think any country supplying weapons to forces fighting American soldiers was a belligerent—but saying the quiet part out loud is unhelpful.
The Biden administration has executed a sound foreign policy to resist Russian aggression in Ukraine. It would improve on that policy if it started adhering to greater message discipline, and right quick.
We agree that the overall policy has been sound and that doing it more quietly would be even better. But, again, it sure seems like rubbing Putin’s face in it is a deliberate policy.
