The national security policy of the Biden administration is undoubtedly one of its biggest failures. It is characterized by a series of misjudgments, failed negotiations, and sheer incompetence, unlike anything seen in American history.
Watching Team Biden handle national security is akin to witnessing a group of baboons attempting to fly an airplane – it’s only a matter of time before disaster strikes.
It all begins with deterrence, which the new generation of Democratic foreign policy experts views as outdated.
Deterrence involves instilling fear in your opponent to prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of aggression. It is a concept derived from game theory, which analyzes how multiple actors can act to maximize their benefits in a particular scenario.
The objective can vary, whether it is to “win” or achieve a stable equilibrium, resembling a geopolitical game of poker.
Game theory plays a crucial role in geopolitics, especially during periods of possible and actual conflict. It is not an outdated concept, as demonstrated by the mishandling of Biden’s policies in Ukraine over several years.
During the Cold War, the concept of deterrence was often criticized due to the doctrine of “mutual-assured-destruction.” The United States and Soviet Union had a policy of retaliating with full-scale nuclear attacks if faced with a nuclear strike.
At first glance, this approach may seem absurd, as it involves destroying the planet based on a theoretical concept. However, surprisingly enough, it was effective.
Europe experienced the longest period of peace between its major powers in history after World War II, lasting over 70 years. This surpassed the previous record of 43 years (1871 to 1914). However, this era of peace came to an end during the Obama administration, which abandoned deterrence in favor of “proportionate response” and economic sanctions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine for the same reason wars are typically started – he believed he could successfully carry out the invasion without facing significant consequences. Unfortunately, he was partially correct in his assumption. Initially, the response from President Biden’s team was to give up and retreat.
However, it was the determination and resolve of Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, that ultimately compelled the Western nations to take action.
The aid process for Ukraine has not been successful in restoring deterrence. The Biden administration has witnessed Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro openly disregarding their authority and carrying out another election theft.
Moreover, both Hamas and Israel have chosen to disregard the pleas and requests made by the Biden team. Additionally, Iran continues to arm their Houthi proxies and launch attacks on shipping in the Red Sea.
The failure to deter was already a significant setback, but their approach to the war is even more concerning because it lacks any clear strategy. Team Biden has been moving forward in a haphazard manner, without a well-thought-out plan.
Driven by an unfounded fear of crossing Putin’s so-called “red lines,” they would spend months discussing which weapons to provide and their limitations, only to eventually approve them in a haphazard and unpredictable manner. It seems like there was little consideration for the actual situation on the ground or the immediate requirements of the war.
Team Biden’s incompetence has had dire consequences for the Ukraine war. Not only has it prolonged the conflict, but it has also intensified its danger and put domestic political support at risk. It is truly baffling how their post-modernist neurotic bumbling has resulted in such a disastrous trifecta.
What’s even more alarming is that their incompetence has created a dangerous dynamic. Instead of deterring Putin, their weakness has actually emboldened him to engage in bluster and bluff.
Witnessing the West’s public tremors in response to his nuclear threats, Putin has become increasingly cavalier in his actions. This is a grave consequence of Team Biden’s inability to effectively address the situation.
But considering the precarious condition of Russian weaponry and the challenge of keeping nuclear weapons functional, Putin couldn’t simply assume that any device would operate effectively.
A failure would be a humiliating catastrophe. Consequently, any genuine nuclear threat would necessitate a preliminary test, which requires significant preparation time, making these preparations noticeable well ahead of any potential nuclear attack.
Additionally, crossing the nuclear threshold would be an enormous risk, jeopardizing the support of China and other nations.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, despite their initial indecisiveness, eventually recognized Putin’s transparent bluff.
This has set off a worrisome pattern: Western countries consider providing additional military assistance, Putin responds with nuclear threats, the West dismisses Putin’s warnings, and the Russians feel embarrassed. However, public humiliation is something Putin cannot tolerate, leading him to take action.
The outcome? Instead of achieving a balance of fear or a delicate equilibrium (a crucial objective in adhering to proper game theory behavior), Team Biden ignorantly set in motion a cycle of escalation.
Early in the war, Biden missed an opportunity to establish a clear and straightforward doctrine. He should have publicly stated that Ukraine has the right to respond to Russia’s actions with American arms.
For example, if Russia were to launch missiles 100 miles into Ukrainian territory, Ukraine would have the ability to do the same in Russian territory. This approach would have provided Ukraine with a deterrent and a means to defend itself against Russian aggression.
By opting for this approach, Putin would have taken control of the level of violence while also bearing the responsibility for any damage inflicted on Russian territory.
This would have eliminated the ongoing public discussion in the West regarding Putin’s “red lines.” Instead, Putin would have demonstrated his red lines by determining the manner in which he waged his war.
The Russians have been acting with absolute impunity due to a lack of fear. They have been conducting indiscriminate bombings in Ukraine, committing massacres against civilians, and causing destruction to energy infrastructure.
There are even suspicions of their use of poison gas. On the other hand, the Ukrainians have been prevented from defending themselves against Russian troop formations on Russian soil, which are preparing to advance on Ukrainian positions. This situation is nothing short of pure idiocy.
The West finds itself trapped in a political “doom loop” as a consequence. Russia’s relentless destruction of Ukraine’s vital infrastructure and economy necessitates increased financial support to keep Ukraine afloat. This, in turn, escalates the costs for the West, eroding domestic political backing for aiding Ukraine and ultimately emboldening further acts of violence by Russia.
The Biden administration failed to grasp this simple concept. The left has been loudly criticizing President-elect Donald Trump, accusing him of potentially betraying Ukraine. However, Trump and his national security team possess a clear understanding of the concept of deterrence and are not easily intimidated.
Unlike many American politicians, Trump excels in playing the game of chicken. Even the Ukrainians themselves acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the Biden national security team.
Trump despises losing. His incoming team has no desire to start their term by conceding anything to anyone. There is certainly some uncertainty surrounding Trump’s future actions.
However, considering the ineffectiveness of the current administration, which consists of the most incompetent poker players in the world, both Ukraine and America would benefit from a tough and determined Team Trump rather than a feeble and aimless Team Biden.
Keith Naughton, a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant, is now the co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a consulting firm specializing in public and regulatory affairs.
