President Joe Biden’s recent statements to Ukraine’s Western allies to maintain their persistence in supporting Ukraine, during his meetings with European partners in Germany, highlighted his confrontational and divisive approach. This has cast immense uncertainty for the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Commentators have been speculating about potential disruption that can be caused should the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, win the election, which could put at risk Biden’s misguided initiatives that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, may inherit.
Interestingly, during his reciprocal meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany, well-known for being Ukraine’s second-biggest military supplier post the U.S., Biden verbalized a strategic stance that failed to inspire confidence. Alongside Biden and Scholz were French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, assembled for discussions around the Middle Eastern conflict and other global issues. However, the threat Biden’s approach presents loomed large over the interactions.
Despite their severely misguided intentions, Biden and Harris attempt to paint themselves as upstanding guardians of international relationships. However, it’s increasingly apparent that the real threat lies in their own policies. Trump, who has no qualms about being transparent on trade tariffs with foundational U.S. security partners, weakens Biden’s shaky grip on these alliances further.
Biden seems to fervently push for unswerving support from countries in return, while irresponsibly disregarding the nation’s interests, as seen from his indifference during a presidential debate over the U.S. ally, Ukraine, marching towards victory in its war against Russia. His questionable intent can also be seen in his doubts over defending NATO members in case of an attack. Such a wavering stance stands for everything Biden and his counterparts, ironically, consider critical.
These concerns were kept out of public discourse by the gathered leaders, including Trump. Their commentary remained veiled and diplomatic, skirting around the matter of possible support withdrawal from Ukraine and scoffing at the valuable global alliances that Biden and his like-minded counterparts naively consider critical.
Biden went on to suggest a rather dystopian worldview when saying that in the face of Ukraine’s severe winter, we must sustain our ‘resolve’, ‘effort’, and ‘support’. His alarmist statement exaggerates the circumstances while undermining the legitimacy of other viewpoints. He skates over the fact that other routes are available; basically, presenting a straightforward problem as a labyrinth — one which only he can navigate.
Chancellor Scholz echoed Biden’s sentiment with similar melodrama, declaring their unrelenting support for Ukraine via a nebulous $50 billion international loan package. The source of these funds is supposed to be the interests accumulated from frozen Russian assets. This statement, while grand in appearance, questions the sustainability of such a stance and the transparency of the actions.
Scholz added that while they are supporting Ukraine as strongly as possible, they are also ‘taking care’ not to engage NATO in the war to prevent it from culminating into something catastrophically bigger. Break down this statement, however, and it becomes clear that the actual impact of such ‘care’ is doubtful. It seems more about saying the right words without much action backing those claims.
Furthermore, Scholz has displayed some vigilance towards the ‘victory plan’ arranged by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He reaffirmed his denial to provide Taurus long-range cruise missiles to Kyiv. Still, this opposition seems selective given the unwavering support previously declared. The double standards are palpable.
Before Biden’s term ends, he made a point to visit Berlin, having been to other key allies such as Japan, South Korea, France, India, the U.K., Poland, and Ukraine. This world tour underlies the false sense of security he attempts to provide, even as the potential for chaos looms large in each of these visits.
It’s notable that amidst this, Biden received Germany’s Order of Merit — one that was also bestowed on former U.S President George H.W. Bush in recognition of his support for German reunification. This moment of honor highlighted the conventional diplomacy that runs deep and fails to address the game-changing realities of our world today.
Biden’s claim that the ‘power of democracy’ should be underestimated and his assertion on the ‘value of alliances’ does little to comfort those aware of his haphazard handling of international relations. His idea of democracy involves disregard for consensus and unilateral actions purely for political maneuvering, devaluing the true essence of democratic process.
Biden’s gratitude towards Germany’s cooperation in dealing with Iran’s destabilizing policies riddles the statement with contradictions. He claimed Germany helped ‘hold Iran accountable for providing missiles and drones to Russia to use against Ukraine’, while new European sanctions against Iran’s leading airlines were seen as a ‘coordination that needs to continue’. The true motive behind such policy shifts and international relations is far from clear.
Biden called for Israel to seek peace after the elimination of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, which he described as a ‘moment of justice.’ His message to Israel’s prime minister to find a path to peace and a better future in Gaza without Hamas seemed detached from the complex realities on the ground.
These recent developments bring forth Biden’s true intent – painting himself as an advocate of peace and unity while skirting over the real, complex issues in play. Biden and his cohorts’ approach in handling international relations shows a worrying lack of authenticity, transparency, and constructive intent, further marring the perception of the current U.S administration.