How are decisions made in the White House? The same way as in all developed democratic systems. First, scenarios and positions are developed (formed by various people, think tanks, and influence groups along the chain). These scenarios and positions are then conveyed to the relevant people responsible for the direction. Eventually, they reach the top officials who interpret this data to make decisions.

Throughout this process, interested parties exert influence – directly, through expert communities, and through media. The natural bureaucratic and political process is added on top. Every change in external circumstances can alter the decision. Therefore, making complex and risky decisions usually happens very cautiously, conservatively, and slowly. Wherever there's a desire for very quick decisions because it's URGENT, it leads to the erosion of institutions and dictatorship.

Most basic decisions regarding our [Ukraine's] war – initial sanctions, blocking air traffic with Russia, programs for Ukrainian refugees, first decisions on heavy weapons, HIMARS – were made extremely quickly for European and American systems. The more complex and risky the decisions, the longer the decision-making lag, the more different groups of influence that need to be taken into account, and the higher the political and historical responsibility.

The same applies to Biden's policy. Joe is not a hawk. And there's no public demand for involvement in a major war in the US. More precisely, after Iraq and Afghanistan, US participation in wars is very unpopular. So with the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the US administration was solving two tasks: helping Ukraine and avoiding direct confrontation between Russia and the United States, which could lead to global catastrophe. Many in the United States consider this risk real. And it's no wonder Trump and Co. scare voters with this.

That's why Putin and his gang so actively exploited the "red lines" themes. This isn't a manipulation of Biden's or Sullivan's "fears." It's an influence on the public and elite discourse that Biden and Co. are guided by. This explains the logic of gradually pushing back "red lines." Yes, it's the same "salami tactics" that minimize the risks of nuclear escalation and public discontent.

But Ukraine doesn't care about the logic of caution in American and European offices. Therefore, we inherently have different levels of tolerance for escalation from the Russians. Because we need everything yesterday, Putin's nuclear threats hardly scare anyone anymore.

Finally, the invasion of Russia illustratively demonstrates that Ukraine is ready to ignore US and European warnings. And to prove in practice that "red lines" don't work. Because we have no other options. It's the success of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield in offensive operations, especially under limited resources, that is the key factor that can force the United States to reconsider its policy.

Given the developments on the front and increasing pressure from European allies, the United States may lift its bans even under the current administration. More precisely, not quite. Despite pressure from opponents of such a decision among Democrats, hysteria from Trumpists and Russian agents, they will have to do it. Or Harris will have to do it if she wins.

opinion.informer.text
Articles published in the "Opinions" section reflect the point of view of the author and may not reflect the position of the LIGA.net editors
war with Russia