What Biden meant to say

President Biden has been gaffe prone since he entered the Senate in 1973. His latest gaffe was 10 days ago in Warsaw. Almost as soon as he pronounced nine words – “For God’s sake, this man cannot stay in power” – the White House issued a correction. What the president meant to say…was not a policy of regime change.  

How might this same corrective standard be applied to three other of the president’s  major foreign policy declarations on: democracy versus autocracy; labeling Russian President Vladimir Putin a war criminal; and defending every inch of NATO.

Biden has called the struggle between democracy and autocracy existential for some time. The enemy is the autocrats in Russia, China and lesser states such as North Korea, Iran and now Myanmar, branded by the White House as guilty of genocide against the Rohingya. But presidents have often viewed battles between democracy and repressive autocratic regimes as titanic.

President Kennedy vowed “to pay any price and bear any burden… to assure the survival and success of liberty.” That promise would anchor the U.S. commitment to South Vietnam and a decades-long war America would lose. President Johnson would further argue that Vietnam was being fought “to keep the commies at the Mekong and not the Mississippi.” But did America learn its lesson?

No. After coining the infamous “axis of evil” to manufacture an unholy and unworkable alliance among Iran, Iraq (both of which fought a bloody war) and North Korea in 2002, President George W. Bush went a bridge too far by inventing the “Freedom Agenda.” Bush’s thesis was that democratization will “change the geostrategic landscape of the Middle East.”  Bush was correct. The second Iraq War to bring democracy to that country and eventually across the region was a disaster that changed the character of the Middle East for the worse.

The issue is not democracy versus autocracy. The issue is making democracy work —  not whether autocracy is superior to democracy. One reason why China and Russia appear to be succeeding is that, according to most opinion polls, America’s government is failing.  

But America is not in decline because of democracy. It is in decline because of two political parties that seek power and ideology over governing. As Ben Franklin wisely observed: “A Republic if you can keep it.” At present, the jury is out.

Biden has called Vladimir Putin a “butcher,” “killer” and “war criminal” before. But negotiations with Russia are essential and not only over Ukraine. Arms control, keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and preventing an inadvertent escalation that could lead to nuclear war are critical.  

Will this language help or hinder negotiations? The U.S. has often negotiated with actors as unsavory as Putin: Joseph Stalin, the Chinese communists during the Korean War and later with Nixon’s triangular diplomacy; the North Vietnamese; and Iran with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

What happens when the Ukraine war ends? Will this reflect a long-term hostile relationship? And if so, what is the administration’s strategy not only for dealing with a war criminal but balancing a war against autocracy with needed negotiations?

The president reiterated defending “every inch” of NATO territory with the ironclad commitment of Article 5. But is Article 5 ironclad? Article 5 states: “An attack on one shall be considered an attack on all.” Nations then shall consider what action each might take.

Invocation of Article 5 is not an automatic guarantee to use force or declare war. National parliaments and congresses must authorize the use of force or declare war. Suppose, for example, Russia launched a single missile attack on a supply line in Poland to Ukraine or exploded a small nuclear weapon in Poland. What would NATO do?

Would each nation vote in favor of Article 5? If yes, would each government go to war in the face of a Russian nuclear strike? Article 5 was invoked once on Sept. 12, 2001, after the al Qaeda attack on America. Not every NATO nation went to war in Afghanistan.

These critiques may sound technical. They are not. While politics often demand exaggeration and overstatement to influence opinion, that is not without risk. As a senior member of the Senate said to me privately, Putin will exploit the allegations made against him as propaganda and further proof of American and NATO hostility towards Russia, justifying the “special military operations” in Ukraine.

So, be careful of what is said and more importantly of what is meant. But in the case of Article 5, I believe Biden means it.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D, is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the primary author of “shock and awe.” His latest book is, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and that World at Large.”