Biden’s Mixed Messaging on Russian Sanctions

Early Thursday morning, March 3, reports began to filter through that Russian troops had taken control of the southern Ukrainian city Kherson; Kremlin officials confirmed they were present in the Black Sea port of 250,000 people. It is thought the warring nations may engage in a second round of ceasefire talks today. Will any success for Ukraine in the negotiations be dependent on the effectiveness of U.S., European Union, and NATO pressure in the form of sanctions? So far, Moscow has paid little mind to the economic action, despite a 30% loss in the value of the Russian ruble. It appears the Western sanctions have proved more an annoying sting than a mortal blow to Russia's plans.

The easy answer to why economic sanctions have not stopped Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is that they are too little, too late. But an underlying geopolitical philosophy held dear by the Biden administration may be more to blame. It posits that all global crises can be resolved when diplomats of good faith sit together and negotiate mutually beneficial solutions.

Let's unpack how the White House imposed economic sanctions on Russia. First, Team Biden, with little pre-established or well-articulated purpose for the financial constraints, said the sanctions were a deterrent, as explained by Vice President Kamala Harris at the recent Munich Conference, where a meeting of international heads of state met to formulate a coordinated response to the about-to-boil Ukraine hostilities.

The idea was to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine through the threat of "swift and severe" economic constraints. "The purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence," Harris lectured on Feb. 20. "And the Allied relationship is such that we have agreed that the deterrence effect of these sanctions is still a meaningful one, especially because … we still sincerely hope that there is a diplomatic path out of this moment … the deterrence effect, we believe, has merit." Backing up her stance was an administration official who said, “[The sanctions are] not an end to themselves. Sanctions are meant to serve a higher purpose, which is to deter and prevent."

As we now know, that policy didn't work. Russia invaded Ukraine. And with that, President Biden announced to the American public that the economic penalties placed on Russia by the United States and allies really weren't about deterrence but punishment. "No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening. This could take time, and we have to show resolve, so he knows what's coming, and so the people of Russian know what he's brought on them. That's what this is all about," Biden back-pedaled on Feb. 24.

Less than a week after European leaders were assured that deterrence was the objective, the goal changed. "President Biden … ordered a series of what he called 'strong' economic sanctions on Russia as punishment for its devastating invasion of Ukraine, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin 'chose this war,'" Jeff Mordock explained in The Washington Times. But how "strong" can they be when the United States is still buying oil from Russia?

Compounding the confusion, the White House tried to draw parallels between applying economic pressure on Russia over an invasion and U.S. sanctions placed on Iran. "I would note that the sanctions that we announced yesterday put Russia on par with Iran, cutting them off from a banking system with the global community. We have now sanctioned 80% of their banks in their financial sector," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Think about that for a moment. Russia is a strategic nuclear power, second only to the United States in military capability, having sanctions applied to them "on par with Iran," a Middle East bully and nuclear wannabe. If that's the comparison, is anyone surprised the West's sanctions didn’t make a dent in Russia’s plans?

U.S. leadership’s bluster in threatening sanctions, then imposing them as a deterrent, and finally cowering behind the “punishment” rationale explains why Putin had little to fear from the United States and its allies. Perhaps the only potent deterrence weapon so far has been the bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainian people.

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.

~ Read more from Dave Patterson.