The National Security Council spokesperson released the following statement today:
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan spoke today with Head of Presidential Administration Andriy Yermak of Ukraine about recent events. They discussed their shared concerns about ongoing Russian military activities near Ukraine’s border and its harsh rhetoric towards Ukraine. They agreed that all sides should pursue diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. Mr. Sullivan underscored the United States’ unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
When U.S. officials use language like this, it is bound to create false expectations of how far the U.S. will go in support of Ukraine. Secretary Blinken and others have previously said that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is “ironclad,” and now Sullivan is saying that it is “unwavering.” These statements are hard to take seriously because they make it sound as if the U.S. is prepared to defend Ukraine when we all know that it isn’t, but it is likely that they will antagonize Russia anyway. If the administration wants to “pursue diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions,” these repeated declarations of support for Ukraine are probably having the opposite effect. U.S. officials may think that they are somehow discouraging Russia from intimidating Ukraine, but they are almost certainly goading Russia to do just that. It has not helped that administration officials made statements earlier this year to the effect that the door is still open to Ukraine’s membership in NATO.
As Michael Kimmage and Michael Kofman note in their recent Foreign Affairs article, this talk of “ironclad” commitment is the language that is normally reserved for treaty allies. A treaty ally is exactly what Ukraine isn’t, but the Biden administration is talking about U.S. commitments as if they were. This is bound to make the Ukrainian government overestimate how much backing they will receive, and it will provoke the Russian government more than is necessary. Kimmage and Kofman continue:
Such statements are eerily reminiscent of political support signaled to Georgia in the run-up to the Russia-Georgia war in 2008. Not only is Russia unlikely to be deterred by diplomatic terms of art that lack credibility, it will try to injure the United States’ reputation when Washington appears so overextended.
The August 2008 war comparison is relevant, but it can create misunderstandings if people don’t remember what happened then. 2008 was not the result of a failure of deterrence, but an example of what happens when a client and would-be ally wrongly assumes that a patron state is going to ride to the rescue when it engages in risky behavior. Saakashvili believed the Bush administration’s overwrought rhetoric about freedom and its expressions of support for Georgia specifically, and he assumed that when it mattered the U.S. would swoop in to defend Georgia in a conflict with Russia. He chose to escalate an existing conflict in South Ossetia, some Russian troops stationed there were killed in the initial attack, and the war began. In the event, the U.S. was not willing to risk a major war for Georgia, and the same proved true about Ukraine six years later. One has to hope that the Ukrainian government has learned from the example of Saakashvili’s recklessness to understand that it should not attempt to force the issue in the Donbas. The one scenario where Russia is likely to escalate is if there is a Ukrainian offensive against the separatists, and a lot of loose talk about an “unwavering” and “ironclad” commitment does not help matters.
The reality is that the U.S. has no obligations to Ukraine, and it is folly to keep bluffing as though we have some. Ben Friedman said it very well earlier this month:
This talk is far more likely to encourage desperate Ukrainian beliefs the U.S. will somehow protect them than to deter Russia.
A recurring problem in our Russia policy is that the actions that people in Washington think are useful for “deterring” Russia are actually just goading them into taking the actions that the U.S. claims not to want. When they say our government is “deterring” Russia, the truth is that the U.S. is more likely provoking Russia. The inability to understand how Moscow sees things or why it acts the way it does keeps leading to new, avoidable crises. The knee-jerk impulse to declare that the U.S. has an “unwavering” and “ironclad” commitment when there is no such commitment makes it more difficult to resolve disputes and calm things down. As usual, hawkish posturing just makes things worse, and the Biden administration would do well to stop engaging in it.