A lame duck with evident signs of dementia is the last person to match up against Vladimir Putin.
A lame duck with evident signs of dementia is the last person to match up against Vladimir Putin.
S ince the debate performance in June that resulted in his forced exit from the Democratic ticket, it has been obvious that Joe Biden should not be president of the United States. In the effort to oust him, reporters revealed that he was being specially minded by his sometime-drug-addict son Hunter, his wife, and a handful of trusted aides. He had clearly lost the necessary self-possession that is required in an executive accountable to the American people.
Although it would probably complicate her election pitch in which she is portraying herself as a “change” candidate, Kamala Harris should take up the office of president, from which Joe Biden should step down. And the primary reason this should happen can be summed up in one word: Ukraine.
The Russian war on Ukraine has entered a critical phase, with Ukraine making daring and desperate raids into Russian territory, and Russia continuing to expand and wear down the lines of contact in Ukraine. The United States is in a position to decide whether to lend Ukraine a U.S.-operated weapons system that can strike deep into Russia.
Joe Biden is not competent to make such decisions. The latest rumors are that the administration is deeply divided about authorizing Ukraine to choose targets in the Russian interior for American-supplied guided missiles to obliterate. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is rumored to be in favor of that policy, as it would give Ukraine more leverage in potential negotiations: Kyiv could withdraw the threat to those targets in exchange for Moscow’s withdrawal from Ukrainian territory currently under its domination. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is rumored to be absolutely and defiantly opposed to this, as he believes the Kremlin has communicated to him what amounts to an absolute red line, which, if crossed, would mean that the U.S. would become a full belligerent in the war.
Hearing those differing opinions and then setting a firm policy is the job of a president. He must then judge the reaction to it from our NATO allies and from the Kremlin. But in this case, any one of the players involved, whether a Biden subordinate or an American adversary, may try to press their view to their advantage by preying on — or betting on — Biden’s weakened faculties.
Contrary to the constantly repeated refrain that the U.S. can just give Ukraine the resources and permission to win this war, there is not some silver bullet waiting on the shelf for authorization and deployment, to be followed by a giant victory parade in Donetsk. Weapons-systems delays were caused as much by readiness problems as by uncertainty of will. And each escalation also carries with it risks of response.
One of the few ways in which Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky can effectively expand the potential outcomes is to draw the U.S. or NATO into the war and put Russia’s regime (and perhaps the world with it) at existential risk.
Those who think, as I do, that the drift of U.S. policy in Ukraine over the last decade has been a mistake have reason to be especially alarmed. But it really doesn’t matter whether you think U.S. support for Ukraine’s self-defense and its nationalist project is wise or unwise. No policy can be safely carried out by an incompetent. Any U.S. policy needs to be led, considered, and set by a president in full charge of his mental faculties. Joe Biden cannot be trusted to navigate an unfamiliar hallway, let alone to be the major player at the table with the highest stakes on offer in this world: negotiating against a rival nuclear superpower.