At a moment when Kyiv is in desperate need of reassurance that the West continues to support its defence against Russia’s onslaught, Ukrainians have every right to despair of US president Joe Biden’s latest intervention, in which he appeared to rule out the prospect of their country joining the Nato alliance.
Ever since Vladimir Putin launched his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there has been an unmistakable equivocation about the Biden administration’s backing for the Ukrainian cause.
While the American leader has pledged to support Kyiv in its attempts to defend its territory from Russian aggression, his constant dithering over the quality and quantity of munitions Washington is prepared to provide has raised doubts about the US’s commitment to the cause.
Even though the US has been by far the most significant donor of military aid to Kyiv, American support has often been dogged by disputes over the type of weaponry Washington is willing to commit, and how it might be deployed.
From arguments about supplying Kyiv with sophisticated fighter jets, to more recent debates about using US long-range missiles to hit military targets within Russian territory, the Biden administration’s support for the Ukrainian cause has often appeared indecisive and confused.
For the past two years or so, the main explanation for Washington’s hesitation about providing military equipment has been Biden’s concern not to provoke an escalation of the conflict, one that could result in a direct military confrontation between Nato and Russia.
This is one of the reasons given for US reluctance to allow the Ukrainians to attack Russianterritory, even though the Russians have no such qualms about targeting Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
Following Biden’s most recent comments on Ukraine’s prospects of eventual Nato membership, however, another factor needs to be considered when assessing the administration’s conflicting signals on the Ukraine issue: was this another of the president’s now-notorious gaffes?
Talking ahead of next month’s Nato summit to mark the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s foundation, he declared: “I am not prepared to support the Nato-isation of Ukraine.”
But other senior members of the administration, such as secretary of state Antony Blinken, have previously spoken forcefully in favour of Kyiv being accepted into the alliance. “Ukraine will become a member of Nato,” Blinken said at a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in April, while insisting “support for Ukraine, the determination of every country represented here at Nato, remains rock solid”.
Even if the White House now wants to move away from its previously stated policy of supporting Kyiv’s membership, the Ukrainian cause would be far better served if such comments were not made public until the opportunity arises for negotiations over a peace deal to end hostilities.
The issue of Ukrainian membership of Nato would certainly be an important bargaining chip with Moscow, whose objection to Kyiv’s closer association with the Western alliance was one of the Kremlin’s original justifications for invading Ukraine.
More troubling, though, is the suggestion that Biden may have been unaware that, by indicating that Washington no longer supports the principle of Ukrainian membership, he was signalling a major change of policy.
Speculation about Biden’s mental faculties has become an increasingly prominent feature of his presidency in recent months, with the president regularly misidentifying the names of world leaders and countries.
In February, he mixed up the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl for former chancellor Angela Merkel, and former French president François Mitterrand with the current French leader, Emmanuel Macron.
The same month, special counsel Robert Hur, who was leading an investigation into the president’s alleged improper retention of classified records, concluded that Biden was an “elderly man with a poor memory”.
Concern about Biden’s mental acuity, moreover, has deepened after the Wall Street Journal this week published details of interviews with more than 45 Republican and Democratic officials who expressed concern at the US commander-in-chief’s ability to grasp important matters – such as American policy towards Ukraine.
With the US presidential election just five months away, the suggestion that Biden is no longer capable of demonstrating the qualities required to lead a global superpower like the US not only raises serious questions about whether he should remain the Democratic candidate for November’s contest.
There will be concerns, especially in Kyiv, that he is no longer able to provide the type of decisive and effective leadership the Nato alliance requires if it is to maintain its support for Ukraine. If Biden cannot decide whether Ukraine should, or should not, be allowed to join Nato, he might also struggle to work out whether he wants the Ukrainians to win, or lose, their war with Russia.
