Ukraine war: Did the US commit its first big diplomatic error in five weeks?

The White House and US officials clarified that President Joe Biden did not have regime change in mind but the damage was done.

Till Saturday - into week four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - the US had a limited political objective: Of helping preserve Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and repelling Russian invasion.

Ukrainian soldiers ride a tank through the town of Trostsyanets, some 400km eastern of capital Kyiv, on Monday. (AP)

With this objective, it was able to create an unprecedented global coalition at the United Nations to diplomatically censure Russia, lead its western allies in imposing unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia, reinforce the unity of Nato with individual members stepping to provide unprecedented military support to Ukraine, and create pressure on partners and friends in Asia and Africa to speak up against visible Russian horrors inflicted in Ukraine.

It also adopted a calibrated strategy where it supplied Ukraine with weapons, but did not undertake any measure that may be read by Moscow as escalatory. And its public signalling, so essential in a war, was clear - it would not support Ukraine with ground troops, there would be no world war three due to Ukraine, but if Russia stepped into Nato territory, then all gloves were off.

JOE BIDEN AND HIS 9 WORDS

Then, US President Joe Biden, with nine words that were not a part of his prepared remarks, during a speech in Poland, appears to change the script. “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power”, referring to Vladimir Putin. Did it mean that Washington had now changed its objective to regime change within Russia?

The White House said no, and in briefings soon after the President’s speech, officials clarified that Biden did not have regime change in mind, was not referring to Putin’s power within Russia, and meant that Putin could not be allowed to exercise power in the region, over neighbours. On Sunday, when asked if he had regime change in mind, Biden answered with a curt “No”.

But till then, the damage had been done. Moscow picked Biden’s remark to suggest that this had been the play all along, Ukraine was just an excuse, and the US was attacking its internal political system - and Putin will inevitably use it to consolidate political control internally. France, always keen to assert its autonomy, distanced itself from the US remarks and warned against escalation. The remark also caused concern among capitals in the developing world that are opposed to Russian invasion, but also wary of Western intentions, who suddenly felt that Washington’s intentions were not all that noble.

Commentators who had been supportive of the US actions so far, and even praised it, warned of the perils of the comment. Richard Haas, the president of Council of Foreign Relations, said, “However desirable it may be, it is not within our power to accomplish-plus runs the risk it will increase Putin’s inclination to see this as a fight to the finish, raising odds he will reject compromise, escalate or both…Our interests are to end the war on terms Ukraine can accept and to discourage Russian escalation. Today’s call for regime change is inconsistent with both those ends”. After Biden’s clarification, Haas said it was good that the president had walked back on his comments.

THREE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

There are now three possible outcomes of that nine word sentence, which ended up distracting global attention from Biden’s renewed attempt - and a fairly successful one at that - during his visit to Europe to cement transatlantic unity.

The first is that it would fade away, just as Biden’s hint in January that a “minor incursion” by Russia may somehow be acceptable - which the White House backed away from immediately after - had little substantive impact. The US has clarified that regime change isn’t on the table. There isn’t any tangible change in its strategy. The war continues to be fight on the ground. And at some point, talks between Ukraine and Russia will yield some kind of accommodation, with Putin firmly in the saddle in Moscow.

The second is that Washington’s overreach will erode its moral high ground in the current contest, make both allies and partners sceptical of its intentions, embolden Russia to intensify its aggression, allow Putin to make a renewed outreach to countries in the developing world to paint the West as the problem out to destabilise him, and further reinforce Russia-China unity - for remember if any political set up is as worried about Washington being able to impose regime change objectives as Moscow, it is the Communist party in Beijing.

And the third outcome - which stems from the most charitable explanation of the US president’s statement — is that Biden’s remarks will end up generating additional pressure on Putin, who is already quite squeezed economically and militarily, to try to limit his own political and military goals and find a resolution sooner rather than later. The longer this conflict drags on, the greater the possibility of other forces finding room to undermine Moscow’s political structure, and therefore, the statement - intended or unintended - may have the effect of moderating Putin’s calculations. Nothing that has happened so far indicates that this is how Russia will see the statement, but it is hard to rule out any outcome at a moment of flux.

But nonetheless, Saturday’s remarks may go down as the US’s first big mistake in the current global crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After having weaved together a remarkable and unexpected global response, combining military, economic and diplomatic tools, Washington stumbled. And while it has recovered, the costs of the stumble will be known in the days ahead.