Wasn’t sure where to put this, so started a new thread. After his prepared speech in Poland today, President Biden apparently made an off-the-cuff remark that Vladmir Putin, “cannot remain in power.” That is an incendiary remark to make in the current situation. His staff quickly leaped to walk it back, but assuming it was a gaffe, it’s one that raises the stakes significantly. I know Biden has an (overblown) reputation as a gaffe machine, but I’m just dumbfounded that he could improvise a statement like this.
Well Biden has had people in his own country calling for his violent removal from office before he even took the oath. He seems to get along just fine. Putin will survive. Well until or unless he doesn’t courtesy of the same 9mm headache his defense minister got. I think that is what Biden was getting at. We’ll go back to normal (-ish, got to allow some time for people to get distracted by other stuff) relations as soon as Russia takes out the trash.
Biden is right. Putin is cray and has nukes.
He’s just saying the quiet part out loud.
The White House is already trying to walk that back but not everyone agrees with that approach.
Kasparov has a whole thread about it. Here’s a couple highlights:
No free world leader should hesitate to state plainly that the world would be a far better place if Putin were no longer in power in Russia. A good way to make that come about is to say exactly that. Russia will be pariah until Putin is gone.
If it’s impolitic or a slip to speak the truth, so be it. As I wrote today, Putin’s war in Ukraine and against the world order will not end as long as he is in power. Either the war criminal is isolated or he isn’t. No more half-measures.
“It’s true, but he shouldn’t say it.” -Marge Simpson
Trump made an entire career out of saying what he meant and then walking it back. Maybe Biden learned a few tricks from the master.
It wasn’t an accident; it was a call-out to anyone who might be thinking that Russia would benefit from the forcible ‘retirement’ of Vladimir Putin and his replacement by someone in the position to do so and willing to negotiate an armistice. Biden doesn’t speak ‘off the cuff’ without preparation, and the walk back was just standard diplomatic language. Whether such hopeful pleading will have the desired effect or result in further blowback remains to be seen but it is about all the US seems willing to do at this point.
Stranger
My first instinct was to think of when Lindsay Graham actually said the quiet part out loud, calling for Putin to be assassinated. That was clearly a bad move, as it would increase his guard and make it much less likely to happen, plus work great as a soundbyte.
However, doing it in an “off the cuff” way that avoids directly advocating for Putin’s removal is different. For one, after the above, it’s unlikely that something so soft would have much of a downside. Plus he gets that he needed to play it safe. Plus Russia is doing a lot more poorly now, both on the battlefield (having to pull back) and at home.
I suspect as others do that this is an intentional move. That said, it’s not exactly like a coup would be a good thing, because, in the power vacuum that follows, the risk of nuclear attack goes up, due to lack of leadership. That said, it could be more of a psyops attack on Putin, to make him even more paranoid, and that might be useful.
Whatever it is, the way it was done suggests to me that Biden is actually doing what his foreign policy and military advisors are telling him to do. It does not come off as a political stunt like Graham’s actions. It comes off like taking advantage of Biden’s penchant for “gaffes”.
This is about the most sensible thing that has been said about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s role in the invasion and on the world stage. He is a madman who needs to be removed from even the means of conventional warfare and most certainly from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. A literal no brainer.
For the second time this weekend I am going to agree with Stranger_On_A_Train and say it serves a purpose (in my view two) and it is intentional. In addition to unofficially sanctioning a regime change it serves another possible purpose but one not likely intended.
If Putin negotiates a peace and remains in power - - it would be less than ideal but it would solve the urgent conflict and let Putin have a small victory ("Hey, look at me! I am still in power!!) while ending hostilities perhaps with a slight easing of sanctions so reparations can be paid. He can “save face” to some degree which will allow him to accept otherwise unacceptable circumstances.
If Russia pulls all troops out of Ukraine and sends them to their home bases (not just across the border!) and stops shelling entirely. As long as they surrender any “annexed” territory, [including Crimea?] I would say it would be okay to ease off the sanctions-- but only somewhat until Vlad has been a good little boy for many months in a row. This with the understanding that nuclear readiness goes back to normal peacetime stance and any amassing of troops on Russia’s border with ANYONE will be met with furious anger, full sanctions, and great vengeance. (Meaning hardware staging near the border will be turned into smoking piles of rubble before it can be used. Period!)
In this sense, even if he has to give back Donbas and Luhansk – he can still claim he won by remaining in power himself, despite - - - yadda, yadda, yadda. It solves the most urgent problems – and the one important (but not urgent - hopefully) problem can be solved by Russia at their leisure.
I agree that this was fully intentional and that there is no meaningful downside (give or take a brief injection of fuel into the frothing right-wing pundits who will take any excuse to dry-hump the dead horse of Biden’s supposed senility for their crimson cult).
Biden himself gets to sound tough and direct, saying what everyone is thinking, and then the White House “course corrects” to express what will be the actual policy framework for real-world action. And if the trial balloon attracts more support and momentum than expected worldwide (or, better yet, in the corridors of competitive power in Moscow), hey, that’s a bonus.
If Putin doesn’t keep what he set out to get - at the very lease Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk - he doesn’t survive. Literally. There is no way Putin leaves power at this point except in a box.
Also, forcing reparations on an economy that has already been brought to its knees will win you no friends with the Russian population. It’s tempting to want to punish Russia at large but long term it may not be the wisest course.
“Why is the [White House] saying one thing and doing another?”
“Tradition, mostly.”
- Charlie Wilson’s War
Sounded to me like one of those off the cuff asides added in. Biden does that and it never sounds natural. He’ll say something like: “We’re going to provide 15 million dollars (That’s One Five!) for dot dot dot”
I think that whenever Biden has a big speech to deliver, and he wants it to be perfect and to stick to the carefully prepared text, he should have Obama give the speech. Send him in there like a pinch hitter.
It is kind of interesting that it appears to me that the president has said an obviously stupid thing that contradicts his own administration and required his own administration to “clarify” by saying basically the opposite of what he said, and the response here so far seems to be split into three camps:
the other domestic political party is bad/did the same thing;
this was good and correct 4D chess; and
he is correct but it was impolite to say so.
The more things change!
What if it is “support and momentum” for a war of regime change?
I don’t know. What if there’s support for Putin gracefully retiring so he can reinvent himself as the cowbell player for the Pussycat Dolls?
OK, man.
I can’t decide what to think about Biden’s comment. I could be persuaded that he said a stupid thing.
So – what harm or potential harm has Biden done with his remarks?
If it was intentional (which I strongly doubt), that is the kind of statement you probably want to run by your NATO allies who are actually next door to Russia before making.
You make an excellent point here and perhaps it is time to discuss levels of success. But first . . .
Disagree here, but to be honest I have to say that it is a true possibility. Perhaps Mr. Biden let it slip just because it is so very obvious to him that he felt compelled to state the necessity and it was a blunder.
And if it was a mindless blunder, perhaps it was on his mind because he HAD been discussing it with the NATO allies. Or maybe they agreed Putin must be removed from power to have any long lasting peace - - but agreed it is wrong to force regime change on a sovereign nation. Intentional or not, I think it is likely that matter was discussed.
I routinely insist that rebuilding Europe through The Marshall Plan was the best thing the United States ever did, and I agree with you here under certain circumstances.
If Putin leaves power through death or being locked in a padded cell AND is replaced by a true pro-Ukrainian, pro-Western leader who has NO ties to Putin and who returns the Ukrainian people removed who want to return – well then lift all sanctions and help the Russian economy recover and encourage the rebuilding of everything that was destroyed in Ukraine. While the lives lost cannot be restored, wouldn’t it be nice to see enemies work together to make each other whole (as much as possible)?
But if the West can arrange a peace, a true cease of hostilities by allowing Putin to remain in power – I believe we would be morally bound to accept that partial success to end the suffering of the innocent. In that case Putin would be a constant threat and must remain under severe suspicion and sanctions need to remain largely enforced to deny him the means to start up again. I apologize, I thought I had been clear that my post above was in the case of a less than ideal compromise that lets the madman retain nominal control.
This is a good question. Has any NATO nation or leader given a reaction? Perhaps (if intentional) they have not because it was not an official statement. It seems to me this topic MUST have come up in and around the conference even if it was not widely discussed. It seems to me the worst reaction from allies would be annoyance and the reaction from Russians not named Putin might be . . . well there is an idea. The conventional wisdom as I understand it, in diplomatic circles, is to not poke the madman with access to nuclear weapons – so it could potentially be disastrous. And as I pointed out above, it may give Putin a face saving way to cease a war he is destine to lose anyway by defying the conditions the West seeks.
I missed this thread and posted on the topic in another thread: