The Daily - Why U.S. Soldiers Won’t Come to Ukraine’s Rescue

Episode Date: February 17, 2022

Since the beginning of the standoff with Moscow over Ukraine, President Biden has been clear that he will not allow American troops to come into direct combat with Russians.Why has the U.S., a country that has intervened all over the world in various contexts, taken that powerful option off the table?Guest: David E. Sanger, a White House and national security correspondent for The New York Times.Have you lost a loved one during the pandemic? The Daily is working on a special episode memorializing those we have lost to the coronavirus. If you would like to share their name on the episode, please RECORD A VOICE MEMO and send it to us at [e-mail]. You can find more information and specific instructions here.Background reading: While recent Russian rhetoric has stoked hopes of a diplomatic solution, U.S. and NATO officials have accused Moscow of further building up troops.President Biden’s opposition to sending U.S. forces into Ukraine reflects the mood of a war-wary Washington, as well as concerns about Russia’s nuclear arsenal.Here’s a guide to the causes behind the Ukraine crisis and where it might be headed.Want more from The Daily? For one big idea on the news each week from our team, subscribe to our newsletter. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. Throughout the tense standoff between Russia and Ukraine, the United States has taken its most powerful tool for stopping an invasion off the table. I asked my colleague, David Sanger, exactly why that is. It's Thursday, February 17th.

David, I want to begin by asking you to explain where the situation between Russia and Ukraine stands at this very moment and how great the risk of war between them is, given what's happened over the past 48 hours or so. Oh, Michael, over the last 48 hours, what we've seen is a lot of improvement in the rhetoric, largely from Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials. But we haven't seen a lot of change on the ground. The Russians say that they have ordered back to barracks a good number of their troops who were engaged in these military exercises right on Ukraine's border. But we've only actually seen that happen down near Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. And we have not seen it happen up in Belarus, where they've put their forces within striking distance of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. And we haven't seen it to the east, where the Russians have a long border with Ukraine and would presumably come in as one of the main vectors of attack. So right now, we're just trying to find out if this is rhetorical

or real. And you've heard both President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken say that so far they really haven't seen any evidence of de-escalation. So we think the possibility of an attack remains pretty high. Okay, well, with that in mind, David, I want to move to the central question of our conversation here. When we as a team talked about this standoff over the past few days and how we've covered it so far, we realized that we have said several times on the show that the United States and NATO,

which the U.S. created and has a huge say in, have ruled out sending troops to Ukraine to protect it and to discourage Russia from invading it. But we've never really explored why that is. So I was hoping you could help us understand why the United States, a country that has intervened all over the world and in various contexts, has taken that very powerful option off the table. has been pretty clear that there is no circumstance under which he is going to allow American troops to come into direct combat with Russian troops. And there are really four major reasons that the

president made that decision. And at the core of it is that there really is not a vital national interest to send Americans in to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty. Well, explain that, David. Why is protecting Ukraine not in our strategic national interest? Well, Michael, when you think about national interest, you have to really think about the great Asians. And the most vital national interest, of course, is protecting the United States from existential threats like a nuclear exchange, right? So it's fairly clear that you would do anything, commit any kind of force, maybe even use nuclear weapons, if you thought the United States was going to be wiped out in a nuclear exchange or a crippling cyber attack that disturbed our way of life, right? But just think about the list

of instances where the United States has actually decided to send troops into harm's way in a foreign country. And we can look at why in each of those cases, the U.S. president at the time perceived that his decision was in the national interest. So let's start with George H.W. Bush. Just two hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. Who decided to send a massive American force to Kuwait when Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and rolled right over its borders. Our objectives are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait.

The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to its rightful place. And Kuwait will once again be free. Bush said this will not stand. Some may ask, why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear. The world could wait no longer.

But the national interests he was describing at the time weren't really vital national interests. It was merely an important interest in keeping oil flowing in the Middle East and making it clear that countries just can't invade their neighbors. Now, then you go on to the Clinton administration. Good evening. Last week, the warring factions in Bosnia... And Clinton, of course, decided to send American forces into a war that had emerged from the collapse of the old Yugoslavia. This was the Bosnia War. In fulfilling this mission, we will have the chance to help stop the killing of innocent civilians, especially children.

It was mostly a humanitarian intervention. It is the right thing to do. Partly he did it out of, I think, guilt that he had not sent forces in to try to stop the genocide in Rwanda early in his presidency. That, he had later on said, was the biggest regret of his presidency, that he hadn't used American forces to save what could have been hundreds of thousands of lives. America is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this century especially, America has done more than simply stand for these ideals.

We have acted on them and sacrificed for them. So in that instance, the U.S. national interest was moral to stop unnecessary death. Exactly right. Then you go on to what was clearly sort of the easiest test case of American national interest, which was the decision to go into Afghanistan. Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We had just been attacked in 9-11.

I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands. Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al-Qaeda network. The government in Afghanistan at the time, the Taliban government, was protecting al-Qaeda. They would not turn them over. None of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. And George W. Bush sent in a CIA force and then troops to go hunt down al-Qaeda. That was an easy and clear case. Right. Classic U.S. vital national interest.

Any American president would have gone in to hunt down bin Laden and wipe out al-Qaeda. Now, Bush then followed that up with the classic case of misunderstanding Central American national interests with his decision to go into Iraq. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. There he almost fabricated on the basis of faulty and some would say politicized intelligence, a threat to the United States. So that was a classic example of violating your own national interests. And I think that's one of the reasons that history has been so unforgiving of that decision.

So, David, how does Ukraine fit into that history when we think about U.S. national interest? I was struck by the fact that a couple of the elements that you just described would seem to apply to Ukraine. For example, a Russian incursion into Ukraine would represent a country invading its neighbor, like Iraq did to Kuwait, and would undoubtedly create a humanitarian crisis within Ukraine along the lines of what we saw in Bosnia, no? Michael, you're exactly right. But the fact of the matter is that President Biden has concluded that we don't have a major national interest here. There's not much we get from Ukraine

that we need the way we needed oil flowing out of the Middle East. And that the humanitarian interest, while great, is not something that the American public is really willing to go pursue at this moment. But if protecting Ukraine itself, David, isn't international interest, isn't keeping Russia in check and telling it, much as we told Iraq in the early 90s, you can't just invade another country, that's not okay. Isn't that in our strategic national

interest? It is. And the question is, where does it fit in? It's not a vital national interest, but preserving the sanctity of nations' borders, stopping Russia from trying to reconstitute elements of the old Soviet Union, that's definitely an important national interest. And so that brings us to the second reason that sending in troops isn't on the table right now. It's basically a question of controlling escalation. You know, at the White House, they put together some tiger teams that were supposed to simulate what might happen if the United States responded in one way or another. And one of the issues they came up with was, if the Russians invade Ukraine and we sent in troops,

what would be the risk of this spinning out of control? You know, you quickly figure out this is a pretty complicated question because, frankly, Russia isn't just like any other adversary. It has more nuclear weapons than any other country on Earth. In the past decade or so, it's demonstrated a willingness to be extremely disruptive with its cyber power, a fairly new capability. And so all of these are enormous impediments that any president's got to think about because the Russians have a way of reaching back here to the United States. Right. In other words, Russia is not Afghanistan. Russia is not Iraq. Russia is a superpower. And you don't lightly provoke

a superpower. Yeah, messing with superpowers is a whole different thing. You know, in the foreign policy world, people call this the and then what problem. And so with the countries we were just discussing, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, the U.S. was always in the dominant position. Those countries don't have the ability to reach back at the United States. And so the answer to the and then what question wasn't really all that scary. Right. But that's not the case if the U.S. were to enter a conflict with Russia. You know, the disaster scenarios are endless. So the, and then what principle, David, could mean that there's a real danger in even sending a very small group of

soldiers to the border with Ukraine, right? 500, 1,000. That alone could trigger some of the doomsday scenarios, in theory, that you're hinting at. That's absolutely right. And if you want the evidence, Michael, that this is the way President Biden's thinking about the problem, just listen to what he said in that interview with Lester Holt that was broadcast right ahead of the Super Bowl. What are your plans toward American citizens who are in Ukraine and might be there during an invasion? What scenarios would you put American troops to rescue and get Americans out? There's not. That's a world war. When Americans and Russians start shooting at one another, we're in a very different world than we've ever been in. He wouldn't even commit to sending troops in to rescue Americans who were trapped in Ukraine.

Because, he said, as soon as American troops are facing Russian troops, well, that's a new world war. We'll be right back. David, you just said that President Biden fears escalation. And clearly he doesn't think protecting Ukraine is in the U.S. national interest. And perhaps that's not all that surprising, right? This is a president who campaigned on a message of ending and avoiding wars. Well, ultimately, Biden's non-interventionist instincts are actually the third reason why we aren't sending troops. If we were talking about a different president, we might have a different approach here.

I mean, I think Teddy Roosevelt probably would have gone in. But Biden is someone who for years has believed that intervention is the last resort. Now, even as far back as when he was vice president and Obama was looking at a surge of troops in Afghanistan, Biden was the one who stood out and opposed that idea. He got into a big argument with Hillary Clinton. There was a big, big mistake to surge forces to Afghanistan, period. We should not have done it.

And I argued against it constantly. He was overruled, but? He was overruled. But then when he ran for president, he promised he was going to get Americans out of Afghanistan. It's long past time we end the forever wars, which have cost us untold blood and treasure. And he executed on that, although not in a very neat way. Mm-hmm. But Biden is very much in line, I think, with the American public view right now

that we've had our fill of interventionist wars. Wars that once we start, we don't know how to get out of. Right. So instead of traditional military intervention, he has developed a set of strategies of deterrence, right? Sanctions against Russia if it invades, and of course, diplomacy. And he's hoping that that will outflank Russia, not any threat of American troops. That's exactly right. And it's why Biden has put so much energy into unifying the allies on a common set of really

harsh sanctions that he's preparing for the Russians. And it's why he's moving so fast to arm the Ukrainian military. But he also knows he's fighting with one hand behind his back because Putin is highly aware of the fact that we're not going to send troops in. is highly aware of the fact that we're not going to send troops in. And frankly, Michael, Biden has signaled that he knows that none of this, the sanctions and arming the Ukrainians, will really stop Putin if he decides that his overwhelming interest is in taking over Ukraine. Right.

taking over Ukraine. Right. Okay, David, what is the fourth and final reason that the U.S. won't send troops to Ukraine to protect it against Russia? Well, the fourth one sounds pretty legalistic, and it's one we've talked about before. Ukraine simply isn't a member of NATO, simply isn't a member of NATO. And NATO is a mutual defense alliance. That means that in its charter, all of the members agree that an attack on one is it is pledging to come defend that country that's part of what's called article 5 of the nato treaty and it's only been invoked once and that one moment was right after the 9-11 attacks, when NATO declared that the attack on the United States was an attack on all NATO nations. And that's why you saw many NATO members join the war in Afghanistan. Right. But it's a very big decision. And so the fact that Ukraine has not yet qualified for NATO membership and probably wouldn't qualify for years to come is a significant element here.

We don't have to come to Ukraine's defense. It's a matter of strategic choice. Mm-hmm. But David, if NATO's original mission, and you have explained this on the show before, was to keep Russia in check, contain its aggression. Doesn't this situation become kind of special? Because here we have Russia threatening to invade Ukraine because Ukraine wants to join NATO. And so if we allow Russia to invade Ukraine, doesn't that raise kind of an existential question about whether NATO is even fulfilling its mission, which is to keep Russia in check? Wouldn't this be the opposite of what NATO was intended to do? And therefore, might it represent an exception to the Article 5 rule? You certainly could argue it that way.

And you heard President Biden say at the White House the other day that if Russia invades Ukraine, it puts the whole world at risk because there's no reason to think the Russians would stop there. puts the whole world at risk because there's no reason to think the Russians would stop there. But the conclusion that Biden and NATO leaders have made about their current need to contain Russia is that they are containing it from attacking NATO states. That's the distinction they've made. And so ultimately, since Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO, they would not make an exception and they would not put American or other NATO troops into the country to face the Russians. David, I'm really curious, if you are President Biden, is the reality that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and that no exception will be made. Is that kind of a relief? You know, having a written policy that says that the U.S. doesn't have a military obligation

to send troops to protect this country, a country that the U.S., based on everything you've already told us, doesn't believe it has a national interest in sending troops to protect anyway. has a national interest in sending troops to protect anyway? It certainly makes the decision easier. You have an easy and clear explanation to the American people and to the world about why he's making this decision. That's interesting. So in that sense, the reason we don't need to send troops to protect Ukraine right now, which among other things is because it's not a member of NATO, that might be a reason for the U.S. to never want to let Ukraine into something like NATO. Is that what you're hinting at?

never let Ukraine in because they know that Ukraine is in Putin's sights, that he believes and said explicitly last summer that Ukraine is really a part of Russia and Russia part of Ukraine, that they are inseparable. And so do you want to let into your alliance a country that very well may try to go invoke that insurance policy right away. It might force you into direct conflict with the Russians. And so it's not simply that Ukraine doesn't yet qualify for NATO membership, that its democracy is too unstable, that corruption is too rife. its democracy is too unstable, that corruption is too rife. It's that many members of NATO, including the United States, may not want them in the club anytime soon. Right. And that makes me wonder,

does the U.S.'s response to the situation in Ukraine, driven by a combination of a narrower national interest, fatigue with war, a fear of escalation, and a determination not to extend beyond the very fine print of our defense treaties like NATO, does all of that have implications beyond just this standoff? Because it seems like if the U.S. is unlikely to intervene militarily here, wouldn't that mean we will be less likely to intervene militarily in a variety of other conflicts in the coming years? Well, that's right, Michael, because right now the U.S. government is consumed with what it perceives as a Russia problem. And there is a Russia problem. But this isn't just about Russia.

There is no one who has been watching every day, every hour of this conflict more carefully than the Chinese. Olympics, when Vladimir Putin came to the opening ceremony, issued a statement of support for Putin's principles here that he has a sphere of influence in the region. And that's because Xi looks at this entire conflict and he's thinking about Taiwan, a small democracy that mainland China insists is a breakaway province that it should be able to take back by force if necessary. And can't Xi, David, rest pretty assured, given everything we just described here, that the U.S. won't send troops to protect a country like Taiwan? I'm not sure if he's assured of it, Michael, but he's probably a lot more confident in the thought that any American president would hesitate and probably elect not to send troops if she did make a military move. and we've entered a world in which both of these traditional old Cold War adversaries, the United States, may now feel like they've got a bit more running room to act with impunity, to change their borders,

and not to worry as much that the U.S. has the willingness to stop them, even if it has the capacity. has the willingness to stop them, even if it has the capacity. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. is weaker than it was in the past, but it may mean that our biggest adversaries feel emboldened. And that's a very big deal. Well, David, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. On Wednesday night, after we spoke with David,

American officials said that Russia appeared to be increasing its military buildup around Ukraine by thousands of soldiers, rather than reducing it, as Vladimir Putin had claimed. We'll be right back. to mobilize for war. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Police in Ottawa have ordered the protesters clogging the city's streets to leave or face criminal charges in the government's latest attempt to end a three-week-long occupation of Canada's capital city. But it was unclear whether police would follow through on that threat. In conversations witnessed by the Times, several Ottawa police officers were heard telling protesters that

they had no intention of arresting them. At a news conference on Wednesday, organizers of the protest called on more demonstrators to pour into Ottawa to ensure that the occupation continues. continues. Today's episode was produced by Ricky Nowatzki and Rob Zipko with help

from Diana Wynn. It was edited by Michael Benoit and Paige Cowett, contains original music by Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Rundberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.