“We will let the lawyers decide internationally whether they qualify or not,” he told Des Moines on the tarmac as he prepared to board Air Force One, “but it certainly seems so.” As Biden faces a war that officials believe could go on for months, he is pushing both the weight of the presidency and its limits. His words are carefully analyzed in terms of official meaning, even when advertised, leading to concerns about the escalation of the crisis. At the same time, his urge to visit Ukraine and see the situation first hand was blocked by the bubble that accompanies everywhere. And domestic concerns are pushing him in other directions, his responsibilities extending far beyond a foreign war – leading to sometimes irreconcilable scenarios such as a genocide declaration inside a biofuel factory, pieces of corn dust floating from above. The momentum has sometimes created tensions for a President whose response to the conflict has at times been deeply emotional and whose decades of experience in international relations – at the lower levels of senators and vice-presidents – inform him of his thinking. His comment on the genocide has raised concerns among some officials that he was ahead of the administration’s legal process and could be seen as pressuring officials currently working to make a formal decision, according to those familiar with the response. Just a week before speaking, Biden’s top national security official said the conditions for a genocide had not been met and the State Department had not yet said whether it had found evidence to change that position. While watching scenes of atrocities that took place last week, Biden had privately suggested that they could prove genocide, according to the person who knows the subject. However, this was not formalized by his government when he called it a public genocide. It was the latest example of Biden’s long-standing political traits of direct speech and empathy being tested in his new, elevated role. His allies and advisers say these traits serve as a clarifying force for a largely united Western alliance. And Biden has said privately that there is little time to waste in naming Putin’s actions as they are. But some have questioned his impulses and wondered if a more disciplined approach could work better. After saying in Iowa that it was becoming “increasingly clear” that genocide was taking place in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed concern that the language of escalation could hamper efforts to negotiate a solution to the violence. “I want to keep trying, as much as I can, to stop this war and rebuild peace. I’m not sure that an escalation of rhetoric serves that purpose,” Macron said. He had also warned against escalation following Biden’s comment in Warsaw that Putin should no longer be in power. Other world leaders have welcomed Biden’s sincerity. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trindade said he believed it was “absolutely right that more and more people” use the word “genocide” to describe Russia’s attacks on Ukraine. However, the Canadian leader stopped accusing the Kremlin of committing genocide.
Biden is coming out ahead of the rest of his government
Usually, US presidents are skeptical about enforcing the “genocide” designation before a lengthy process is completed in the State Department. The designation has been officially applied only eight times. And after Biden’s observation, officials said they had not yet made a formal identification based on what he said. “There are certain legal obligations that go along with the formal definition of genocide,” Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, told CNN the day after Biden’s statements. However, the White House was careful not to downplay the words as merely the thoughts of an individual. “He is the President and we are here to implement his views,” said spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “I think we should not misunderstand who he is and where he stands on the totem pole, which is at the top.” Finally, Biden’s comment on the genocide is not expected to cause immediate changes in US policy toward Ukraine, leaving some wondering what the benefit of saying it was. “For me, the biggest question is what purpose does it serve? Can we have a philosophical, legal debate about whether what the Russians have done so far is technical genocide? They have clearly committed any number of acts that fall into the category of War Crimes. “But then the question is, why talk about it this way? Does that make it easier to end the war?” said Richard Haas, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. “I will be honest with you, I do not see the point in doing this, and do not misunderstand me, this is not what the Russians are doing,” Haas said. “It’s not that these are not horrible things. My question now is, how does it serve the strategic and political purposes of the United States? And to be honest with you, I do not understand how it is done.” Ultimately, Biden’s observation was rooted in his determination that Putin could not stay in power: The destructive feeling of conflict, played out in hard-to-watch images of atrocities and suffering. Biden himself has expressed regret that as president, his ability to testify about the suffering in Ukraine is limited by the burdensome but necessary pitfalls of work.
“We are not sending the President to Ukraine”
When planning his visit to Poland last month, Biden’s team explored the possibility of crossing the border to visit Ukraine, which would send an important message of support. President Volodymyr Zelensky had encouraged Biden to visit Kyiv again and again by telephone before the Russian invasion and continued to publicly encourage Western leaders to travel. White House officials, discussing the prospect of Biden slipping into Ukraine, weighed in on the U.S. footprint that would require such a visit – including military and intelligence services, along with a handful of aides and the press – and who they would be. Ukrainian resources are required. Eventually, however, the scale of an American presidential visit was too large and the aides did not take it seriously. Instead, Biden went to a town in southeastern Poland near the border. While there, he lamented his inability to do the extra 50 miles in Ukraine. “They will not let me, it is understandable, I suppose, to cross the border and take a look at what is happening in Ukraine,” he said. As senator and vice president, Biden was a regular visitor to U.S. war zones, including undercover, dark night voyages – a fact he reported when he met soldiers inside a stadium in Poland. “I have been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan about 40 times,” he recalls. However, in contrast to a stance in Iraq or Afghanistan where US bases and personnel could assist in airspace security, Ukraine is not a US war zone and Biden has consistently refused to send US troops into the area. of the country. As Russian troops withdrew from the area around Ukraine, a stream of Western leaders arrived in the country. First was European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who stopped to see scenes of atrocities in the city of Bucha before traveling to Kyiv. She was followed by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who walked the streets of the capital with Zelensky, shaking hands and meeting residents who had survived weeks of bombing. A woman gave him a ceramic chicken figurine in gratitude. He ate a bowl of soup with Zelensky. Watching from Washington, Biden could not but long to go himself. Since taking office, he has long argued that meeting with leaders face-to-face is far better than talking on the phone, and last month’s NATO summit in Brussels was his idea. As a politician, his power has always been in human interactions with ordinary people. However, even curating the British leader’s visit – which included planes, trains and helicopters – would prove impossible for an American leader. Since returning from Europe, Biden has used his public appearances to focus solely on domestic issues, scaling up his travels across the country to advertise economic progress as his acceptance rates continue to plummet. The assistants say that the kitchen issues are a priority and his schedule reflects that. Biden said this week that he was still deciding whether to send a high-ranking US official to Ukraine. When a joker asked a journalist if they were ready to leave, they replied: “Are you?”. “Yes,” Biden said. “He is ready, he is ready for anything. People like fast cars, some pilots, he is ready to go to Ukraine,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an interview with Pod Save America on Thursday. However, it was clear that there was no prospect of such a trip: “We are not sending the President to Ukraine,” he said.
