Why Biden Bears No Blame for the War in Ukraine: Debunking Right-Wing Propaganda

The Ukrainian War, with its profound impacts on global politics, has brought into sharp focus the question of responsibility. Some speculate that former US President Joe Biden should have prevented the conflict by engaging directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This article addresses common misconceptions and highlights why such a scenario was not only unlikely but also deeply rooted in flawed reasoning.

Why Biden’s Actions Were Exhaustive

It is often suggested that Biden could have prevented the invasion by reaching out to Putin, urging him to call off the invasion. This argument, however, is both naive and based on unreasonable expectations. Let's dissect this further.

Authenticity vs. Flawed Assumptions

Supporters of this argument sometimes claim, 'How do you know he didn’t try?' While it's true that we can never know every detail of a political figure's inner thoughts, the suggestion that Biden could have simply negotiated his way out of a complex geopolitical crisis is absurd. The reality is that the conflict between Ukraine and Russia was a deeply entrenched issue, driven by aggressive Russian policies rather than an unforeseen political miscalculation.

Putin's actions, from a military standpoint, were well-planned and carried out with a clear agenda. The idea that a simple phone call to Putin, appealing to 'his better nature,' or offering bribes of technology, is both unrealistic and unethical. Bribing a world leader with technology would set a dangerous precedent, and it’s clear that Putin would not be swayed by such terms, given his history of broken promises.

Strategic Options and Their Consequences

Another common suggestion is to threaten Putin with military retaliation. This, however, raises the specter of global conflict, risking a Third World War. Military action is a serious option with severe repercussions, and it would be reckless and shortsighted to pursue it without due consideration of international law and global stability.

Consequently, Biden’s reluctance to engage in talk of military confrontation was a measured and responsible approach. These actions align with the ethos of diplomacy and international law, aiming to prevent escalation rather than provoke it. Any responsible world leader would take this cautious approach to the geopolitical complexities.

Rebutting Misinformed Questions

Those who ask simplistic and disconnected questions, such as 'If Biden had negotiated with Putin, would Western countries have supported him with military aid?' are engaging in highly speculative and unrealistic thinking. The idea that the West would withhold support from the duly elected leader of Ukraine because of Biden’s negotiation attempts with Putin is not only implausible but also a misrepresentation of the complex international dynamics at play.

The Ukrainian conflict is not merely about negotiating between two countries but also about defending democratic values and international law. NATO's and the West's support for Ukraine was justified and necessary in the face of a clear and present threat from an aggressive state. It would have been counterproductive and contrary to democratic principles to ignore Ukraine's plight in the face of such a significant threat.

Moreover, the notion that Putin would be swayed by any form of negotiation is laughable. Putin's actions were driven by a mix of territorial ambitions, historical grievances, and strategic interests, none of which could be easily dissuaded through diplomatic means. It is more reasonable to consider the role of international sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and firm condemnation as more substantial and effective tools against Putin's aggressive policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the idea that Biden could have prevented the war in Ukraine without significant geopolitical risks and through unrealistic diplomatic means is both specious and driven by misguided beliefs. Joe Biden's actions were guided by a pragmatic understanding of international relations and a commitment to preventing the escalation of conflict. It is important for us to prioritize realistic and effective strategies over ill-conceived and unworkable solutions, lest we undermine the very principles of peace and security that we uphold.