Ukraine

Biden Is Right To Keep U.S. Troops Out of Ukraine

But there are still constitutionality questions surrounding his troop deployments to NATO's eastern flank.

|

This afternoon, President Joe Biden delivered remarks on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin's "unprovoked and unjustified" attack on Ukraine, calling it "a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering." Biden outlined a package of stringent sanctions to be imposed against the Kremlin in collaboration with Western allies.

"Putin chose this war," Biden declared. "He will pay."

Despite outlining strong punishments in the form of sanctions and frozen assets, Biden has set a bright line on just how directly the U.S. will involve itself in the fighting: "Our forces are not—and will not be—engaged in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine."

In the same breath, the president expressed that the U.S. would defend NATO allies "with the full force of American power" if Russia's military actions stray beyond Ukraine's borders. U.S. troops who were already stationed in Europe are being sent to countries on the eastern flank in order to reassure NATO allies. Though Russia has not attacked a NATO nation, the alliance says it "will continue to do whatever is necessary" to protect its members from aggression.

Biden is absolutely correct to say that there shouldn't be American boots on the ground in Ukraine. This isn't something the American public wants—according to a poll conducted by Concerned Veterans for America and YouGov, just 9 percent of respondents strongly favored the U.S. going to war with Russia following an invasion of Ukraine. Americans are tired of war. Having just concluded a 20-year mission in Afghanistan, it's no wonder. Recent presidents have been far too quick to enter the U.S. into far-off conflicts with unclear ties to national security interests and dubious justifications for involvement.

Compared to the involvement we could have had, stationing American soldiers on the territory of NATO allies seems prudent. But this isn't free of issues, either. As former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) pointed out last month, "Any effort by the president to enter U.S. troops into hostilities in Eastern Europe without congressional authorization" deprives "Americans of their right to be represented regarding whether their loved ones are sent to war." Congress has not issued a declaration of war, which is constitutionally required before a president may direct the U.S. Armed Forces. And under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress of troop committals within 48 hours and remove troops after 60 days if Congress does not approve an extension. Through the lens of these legal standards, Biden's troop-related actions are flawed.

Biden deserves credit for some of the stances he's taken to protect U.S. troops. He ended a war that killed over 2,400 American service members in Afghanistan. He's opting not to send American soldiers to Ukraine to stave off Russian aggression, realizing how lethal a conflict between two nuclear-armed global superpowers could be. These are difficult decisions to make in the face of brutal attacks that are endangering civilians—civilians the U.S. should welcome with open arms.

But the credit given to Biden should come with an asterisk. It's reassuring that his first instinct wasn't direct boots-on-the-ground intervention in Ukraine—but his current course of action should still concern anyone who supports more restraint and accountability in U.S. foreign policy.

NEXT: Kansas House Considers Major Asset Forfeiture Reforms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Biden is right to keep US troops out of Ukraine, but a damned fool for announcing it. Just like he was right to get out of Afghan, but bungled it badly.

    If Trump was Prez there would be no Ukraine war because Trump was unpredictable, as he promised. Just like in football, your defense needs to keep the opponents off balance and uncertain.

    1. You can bet Xi is watching and plotting. The Taiwanese must be shaking in their beds.

      1. Yep, that great big sucking sound you heard is the mass sphincter-tightening in Taiwan.

        1. I don't think it's going to happen next week or something, though. China knows that Taiwan is a heck of a lot more important to us than Ukraine is. I think the smart money is that the US isn't going to get involved in a shooting war with China over it, but we've been vague enough on that point that the PRC does have to consider it.

      2. They accidentally already leaked this.

        "Simply put, China has to back Russia up with emotional and moral support while refraining from treading on the toes of the United States and European Union," Ming Jinwei, a senior editor at the Xinhua News Agency, wrote in a WeChat blog cited by The Post. Xinhua is the official press agency of the Chinese government.

        "In the future, China will also need Russia's understanding and support when wrestling with America to solve the Taiwan issue once and for all," the editor later added.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/china-news-outlet-ukraine-coverage-instructions-weibo-horizon-russia-2022-2?op=1

        1. "Accidentally"

        2. I doubt it's going to be long. The proactive flights by China are to test Taiwanese reaction times so China can calculate how many aircraft to send and what the losses could be.

          Much the way I suspect putin will prod a nato nation on Ukraines border, if for nothing else than his own little fact finding mission about our readiness and resolve.

          These aren't just provocations, theyre like criminals casing a house to identify its vulnerability.

    2. If Trump was Prez there would be no Ukraine war because Trump was unpredictable, as he promised. Just like in football, your defense needs to keep the opponents off balance and uncertain.

      I'm not so confident that I would say this.

      1. Remember the Iranian colonel Trump had assassinated.

        Putin does.

        1. Who can forget world War 4?

          Apparently Iran has demanded its revolutionary guard be removed from terrorism lists to get back into the Iran deal biden desperately wants and the wh is considering it.

          1. How much are they offering Hunter?

    3. Came here to say it. It weakened his hand considerably. It really exposes the dangers of his jingoism too. Beating the war drums but announcing before hands that you really don't mean it, is probably the dumbest route you could choose to go. I still am not convinced we won't stumble into a war because of his weakness and inaptitude.

      1. You overlook the strategy Biden is playing of engaging the rest of the world in opposition to Russia's aggression, and he has done that successfully. Threatening or implying a military response - especially when you are not going there and Putin knows it - would scare off a significant portion of that support. The more nations join in the economic warfare against Russia, the more successful it will be.

        1. ...except the world's response is to do basically nothing. The "world" is doing precisely squat to do anything to hamper Putin doing anything.

          "Well, at least his ineptitude is global" is not the praise you think it is.

    4. The sore lewsers were WAY more concerned with putting a whack job harridan on the Court, bullying girls, shooting blacks, latinos and hippies over plant leaves and voting for Democratic spending and meddling. Voters booted their asses out. Now that they got what they deserved, here they whine about the unfairness of it all.

      1. This is what happens with grapefruit and medication interactions folks.
        Talk to your pharmacist and know the risks.

        1. Hank's the best.

    5. JFC, talk about delusional.

      Go sit outside while the adults talk. Take your 99% of other dumbasses here with you.

    6. Come on corn pop...Biden was pushing for NATO expansion back in the 90's when Daniel Moynahan and Bill Bradley were saying it was going to pave the road for authoritarian Russians like Putin..feeding their paranoia. He was VP for Libya and Syria. And during the revolution in Ukraine in 2014. Yes he is sane not to send US troops to Ukraine...but that is about it.

      Now if Russia gets into a quagmire, it becomes very very dangerous with Putin...if he starts to get protesting in Russia he could very well start civilian bombing and it becomes closer to a nuclear war

  2. He ended a war that killed over 2,400 American service members in Afghanistan.

    A little too soon for the historical revisionism, is it not? Where did they find this moron writer?

    1. Do you deny the death count, or the fact that we are out, or that Biden did it. Only the last one is debatable.

      1. I think the implication is pretty obvious. But perhaps you can figure it out without any hints.

      2. Debatable my ass.
        We would still be there if not for trump, and it burns your ass to know that.

        1. It doesn't because Molly, like all of the leftist that post here, is a warmongering piece of work.

        2. After the original Hitler shot himself, tens of thousands of his German brainwashees did us the favor of following their Leader's example. Orange Hitler's brainwashees could at least follow the only good example National Socialists ever set. Such selfless and voluntary action would make the world a better place.

          1. That's right because Trump started wars, and didn't get huge peace deals, and stationed troops in DC, and... oh wait.

          2. Whatever you say, bigot.

      3. Biden extended it for 6 months and then pushed the worst withdrawal in history.

        1. SLOPPY PULLOUT!

          1. No one cares about your sex life.

            1. Except maybe the FBI.

            2. Buttplug's right, it was horribly sloppy. Thousands died or were betrayed.

          2. Is this even supposed to be something? Is your contention it wasnt?

  3. So no country was willing to actually go to war to defend Ukraine. Russia has been saying forever that it feared NATO in Ukraine and would not allow it. Yet it dangled there for 30 years with the implied threat that we would all come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia moved in, and it dangled that we might admit them to NATO if Russia doesn’t do what we want. So, knowing it was a bluff in Feb 2022, why didn’t Joe sit down with Vlad and promise that Ukraine would never be allowed in? Because it might have made him look weak or that he would be called Vlad's bitch? OK, but how weak do we look now? Joe’s team must have assessed that this outcome is better than making the promise. Get outraged, look like it is tough on Vlad, meanwhile, Joe says “sucks to be Ukraine, but at least I’ll milk this for myself and the media will say I’m going toe to toe with Vlad!” Move some troops around, do some sanctions, look busy, and the polls will follow.

    1. IMHO, Putin is invading Ukraine because his hackers got all the emails off of Hillary's server, including the 20 with Obama suspiciously using an alias, Bill's emails and Clinton minion emails, and have been blackmailing them since. The Clinton/Obama team are likely willing to go to war with Putin to cover it up. After all, it was the Clinton/Obama team that allowed Putin to annex Crimea (and didn't send defensive weapons), to buy a lot of US uranium reserves, and help to his allies Iran and Syria.

      Freedom House says Russia is Not Free, and Ukraine is Partly Free, Wikipedia shows Russians earn almost 2X what Ukrainians do. Prosperity is highly correlated with freedom, but this looks like an exception (natural resources perhaps?).

      I'd hate to be a Ukrainian wondering if they're going to be a second class Russian, if they're going to survive, and how to stay safe.

    2. Taiwan has a nuclear arsenal no invader wants to test. Ukraine should have written a Second Amendment when they had the chance, and armed themselves with what collectivism respects.

  4. We're barely a year into this administration. He's still got nearly three years unless they 25A him.

    1. Or he croaks, given his age and apparent health status, that is a real possibility.

    2. “This is a premeditated attack,” U.S. President Joe Biden told reporters at the White House as he unveiled harsh new sanctions, coordinated with allies, against Russian banks, oligarchs and state companies.

      Nothing gets past our leader.

      1. I'm glad that this wasn't an accidental attack. That would just be embarrassing.

        1. Not like shitting yourself on public embarrassing, but still.

  5. American soldiers may not be in Ukraine but they sent another 8000 troops today thats on top of the earlier 8000 and the other 3000. why send any unless they are going to be doing something that will eventually get them hurt then we will be involved. Remember we weren't supposed to have troops in Syria either but they are still there as well

    1. Don't forget NATO making a big announcement last night that they were going to full military readiness in preparation. We did this all the time during the Cold War but never announced it, because announcing it is pretty fucking provocative.

  6. Biden may not have sent troops in (yet) and may not, but he and NATO have definitely been far more provocative than necessary if they weren't willing to use force.
    In the words of the late Kenny Rogers:
    "You got to know when to hold them
    Know when to fold them
    Know when to walk away
    Know when to run..."

  7. " Congress has not issued a declaration of war, which is constitutionally required before a president may direct the U.S. Armed Forces."

    The President is within his authority to direct the US Armed Forces in non-combat deployments in allied nations and to defend against an attack on the United States or to uphold obligations of duly authorized treaties with allied countries, like NATO members. The notion that a formal declaration of war is absolutely required in every case is a fever dream fantasy.

    1. And as Obama proved, Democrats can declare a war, call it not a war (kinetic action anyone) and journalists will fall all over themselves to justify the lie.

  8. Biden is absolutely correct to say that there shouldn't be American boots on the ground in Ukraine.

    Hold on. Wingnut.com says Biden has gotten us into a full scale war - like Obama's "war" in Lybia.

    WORSE THAN IRAQ!

    (still mocking that fucking idiot poster here named 'John')

    1. John is in your head, not here.

    2. John was 10 times the poster you are.

      Fuck you for still defending Obama’s illegal actions in Libya. Demfag.

    3. "like Obama's "war" in Lybia. WORSE THAN IRAQ!"

      It's "Libya" not "Lybia", Shrike.
      And I suppose it depends on your view of the new Benghazi slave markets.

  9. At this point, it is time for the US to quietly tell its friends in Japan, Taiwan, Eastern Europe and elsewhere that we are not interested in supporting their regional stability. If they want to preserve their sovereignty, they had better find regional allies and/or develop nukes.

    In the past, these countries have declined to go nuclear, because Team America, World Policemen had guaranteed the world order. We would vouch for Taiwan, and Ukraine, and Libya, and Germany, and Lithuania when push came to shove. And so those nuclear armed enemies would be deterred from turning anything into a full shooting match.

    Well, no longer. Right, wrong or indifferent (though I believe it to be right) the US has no interest in being the free world's nuclear-belted bouncer, maintaining the peace. Many of the countries acting exacerbated as we stand aside are the same "allies" that used to bite our ankles, and talk shit about our oafish belligerence while neglecting their own defenses.

    It is time for the great realignment. And that probably includes a bunch of countries deciding that it is time to become a nuclear power. While a nuclear exchange between Poland and Russia would likely see the former obliterated, it would be at a cost that ought to make Russia think twice before forcing their capitulation. What is the benefit of invading a country if it will merely end up a wasteland of nuclear glass while losing your 4 most populated cities in the process.

    It would have been good for the US to quietly give notice to its dependents that it was quitting the World Police job, but at least now everyone understands what is up. Japan, Korea and Taiwan better tie the knot soon, because China has a very hungry look in its eyes.

    1. This is fucking retarded.

      I get it, libertarians should be anti interventionist pacifists. And even I usually am.

      But you can't be so fucking ignorant as to not see the massive threats to liberty around the world and how they're growing. Maybe I'm One of the few here that believes our rights truly are inalienable. Meaning they're universal, and given to every human designed by our creator. Maybe I just hate communism far more than any of you, my family had to flee communists once and socialists twice after all.

      But we cannot pretend that allowing communists scum like Xi and putin to March around the world and subjugate whoever they please is a good long term strategy for liberty or America.

      And all this fear of retaliation or escalation from putin if we attack him... Why didn't he fear our retaliation if he invaded? Maybe because we telegraphed there would be no retaliation?

      As I said yesterday, I'd be unleashing much harder sanctions, I'd target their energy production instead of intentionally ignore it, I'd be unleashing the full weight of the NSAs cyber warfare capabilities against Russia. I'd be trailing every asset I know they have at sea with a drone. Carriers to the black sea. Blockade the black sea. I'd be shipping advanced weaponry and drones to Ukraine and Poland.

      Then I'd suspend all future Russian visas and cancel all existing student, scientific, or engineering visas of Russian citizens and deport them all.

      And since many of you calmed my thirst for communist blood yesterday, I may not try to murder putin. But I certainly would begin leveling Belarus. Why isn't that being discussed? If Belarus wants to be a communist lap dog then why are we afraid to crush them? Is putin going to nuke us because we carpet bomb Belarus? Are we always going to pretend we must fear Putins retaliation but he never fears ours?

      1. "But we cannot pretend that allowing communists scum like Xi and putin to March around the world and subjugate whoever they please is a good long term strategy for liberty or America."

        The retarded point is assuming that we can do something about it at this point. While I lean towards non-intervention, I would have no problem defending (say) Taiwan or Japan from Chinese incursion. If we could defend them.

        Unfortunately I suspect that our country CANNOT defend against China.

        You suppose two outcomes: One where China is free to take Taiwan, and one where the US is enough of a threat to fight off China if they try to mix things up.

        I see two different outcomes: One where Taiwan falls and the US fleet is at the bottom of the East China Sea, and one where Taiwan stands or falls with its own regional allies, and nobody is sure if our Fleet is a paper tiger.

      2. I'm not saying never go.

        My argument is: If we aren't willing to send 1 million troops for an issue, then the issue is not worth sending any troops.

        We've spent decades fighting wars with the smallest forces possible and it never works. Never. Only way to win is via overwhelming force.

  10. But it would do wonders for his approval rating if he did. Look how Bush 41 and Bush 43's ratings rose when they entered the Persian Gulf.

  11. "Biden Is Right To Keep U.S. Troops Out of Ukraine"

    This reads like you're having an imaginary argument with someone in your head.

    Who is advocating that the United States invade the Ukraine? Anyone?

    1. Neocons like shrike’s favorites Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney?

      1. They're non-entities.

        You read down the headlines today, and it sounds like they all think they're arguing with somebody.

        The Democrats are much more likely to go against war at this point.

        I read an editorial by Karl Rove with a title saying that Biden had a short time to act, figuring, "Okay, now I'll finally find somebody who's advocating that we invade the Ukraine". Wrong! It was a click-bait headline. He was only calling for tough sanctions, and he was saying that Biden better hit Putin with them quick before the Europeans resolve fades.

        Not even Bush's campaign guys want to invade the Ukraine.

        They're arguing with voices in their heads.

        I think TDS has left them adrift. They're so used to being for and against things based solely on whether Trump likes them or hates them, and now they don't know what they think and why.

        What we should be talking about is where the real red line is and why. Neoconservativism is dead in the Republican party. Long live pragmatism. That's how we won the Cold War the first time, and if there's another one, that's how we'll win it again. I saw an article about how energy is power, and that's a step in the right direction. Yeah, let's talk about economics, energy, prosperity, and culture as a driving force. Why are we curtailing natural gas exploration on public land? Why is Hollywood selling woke shit no one wants? When we were winning the Cold War, we were flooding the market all the energy we could get, and average Russians wanted to buy Levis blue jeans and listen to rock and roll.

        1. The Democrats are much more likely to go after war at this point.

          Fixed!

          1. I was going to say something when I first read that, lol.

            My comment was more a dig at shrike and his undying support for Democrats and their war mongering. But I think you’re right that their (neocons) influence in the Republican Party. Love him or hate him, that is mostly because of Trump.

            And in the big game of geo politics, sanctions have only ever proved to harden the hearts and minds of the general population affected by them, but just spreading the great things produced under capitalism (Michael Jackson, Levi’s, what have you) won a ton of people over. That is the way forward. And it’s absolutely why globalists like shrike hate freedom and capitalism.

    2. I mean I don't want to invade Ukraine. But we've got lots of ways of killing communists that don't involve boots on Ukraine soil. We should be exploring those.

    3. The U.S. already had. During Obomber administration his little doxey, Victoria Nudelman was over there providing material and political support for the neo-Nazi thugs who eventually took power in a bloody coup. If it wasn't for ms. Nudelman's cookies .....
      Nudelman by the way, was her real name before she changed it.
      The Maiden revolution was backed entirely by Washington.

  12. "As former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) pointed out last month, "Any effort by the president to enter U.S. troops into hostilities in Eastern Europe without congressional authorization" deprives "Americans of their right to be represented regarding whether their loved ones are sent to war."

    If a NATO member were attacked by Putin, I have little doubt but that an authorization for war would be forthcoming from Congress in no time, but someone should probably also point out that NATO is a mutual defense treaty--and it was constitutionally ratified by two-thirds of the Senate in 1949. Let's not pretend otherwise.

    1. What's most telling here is not amashs quote. It's the fact they even cited him as a relevant perspective. The guy got completely duped by the trump Russian hoax and looked like a vindictive clown because of it. Hed have been so embarrassed in his next election he decided not to run.

      It's kind of like how ENB and the other retards at reason constantly cite things from vox or the Atlantic when their lib writers actually write or say something remotely libertarian. But completely ignore the writings and thoughts of actual proclaimed libertarians like Kennedy and Lawrence Jones at fox.

      I'm still waiting for reason to acknowledge Lawrence jones's existence. He's one of the brightest and most popular young libertarian minds out there. Must he why reason has never mentioned him. He's cooler than them.

    2. There's no reason for the continued existence of NATO. It's old, corrupt and untrustworthy.

      1. You forgot to use sarcasm font.

  13. Why doesn't Fiona ever urge Russia or Ukraine to import Saracen suicide bombers, pauper parasites, violent criminals and brainwashed totalitarians the way she urges These States to do? Electrical engineers, physical chemists and mathematicians from even the poorest countries are welcomed by U.S. Immigration with open arms and ready visas. Let communism's clingers be the first to try her noble experiment in importing undesirables. It's the noble thing to do.

  14. Is this the article where Fiona declares we must let the Russian army into America? Dumb cunt doesn't seem to have any other thought rattling around in her empty skull.

  15. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1496960828225974274?t=7p7G0g1zTJr687x7z-2Xrw&s=19

    BREAKING: Male citizens of Ukraine between the ages 18 and 60 are prohibited from leaving the country - State Border Guard Service

    1. 60?
      Wow, that's pretty old for conscription. Hope that they get the driving jobs and desk work.

  16. https://mobile.twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1496856204999643142?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1496856204999643142%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fputins-shock-awe-war-ukraine-unfolds-dark-day-europe-many-hundreds-killed

    Footage appears from Kherson region which shows Russian helicopters arrive on the territory of one of the military units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Ukrainian military does not open fire and does not offer resistance, they just let them land on their base. No resistance
    [Video]

    1. The President is within his authority to direct the US Armed Forces in non-combat deployments inallied nations and to defend against an attack on the United States or to uphold obligations of duly authorized treaties with allied countries, like NATO members. The notion that a formal declaration of war is absolutely required in every case is a fever dream fantasy.

  17. Does anyone have any insight on why the entire mainstream media has suddenly begun calling the capital of Ukraine 'Keev' (phonetically) instead of how I've always known it, as 'Kiev' (with 2 syllables)? In Ukranian it's apparently 'Kyiv', which, based on changing vowels mid-word, would suggest to me that it's not supposed to be pronounced like 'sneeze'.

    Anyone?

    1. One is with vodka, one is sans vodka

    2. Kiev is a transliteration of the Russian name for the city, made popular by the Cold War and a chicken dish.

      Kyiv, pronounced like it's spelled, is a transliteration of the Ukrainian name for the Ukrainian capital. It's just polite.

  18. The minute the Soviet Union ceased to exist, NATO should have followed. There is no reason for the continued existence of NATO. It is as corrupted as the rest of Europe. The U.S. should leave NATO, provide no more funding until it fades away. Of course the U.S. should also leave the U.N.
    People seem to forget it was the Obomber regime along with its doxey Victoria Nudelman who backed the Maiden revolt which over threw the then current president of Ukraine then installed a vicious neo -Nazi regime responsible for the murders of over 10,000 Russian people in the Donbass region.
    But then was there ever a time when Washington didn't help to stage bloody coups and then install vicious right wing dictators and provided military support for those clowns no matter how badly the government mistreated the people? Was there ever a time when it didn't? Was there ever a time when Washington's meddling in other sovereign nations didn't upset things and lead to further problems?
    Washington just can't help itself. If there's a nation that's become productive for its people and the people there are happy and content, Washington will find a way to ruin it. Much the same way Washington has ruined America.
    Do we really need Washington, D.C. anyway, anymore? Can the world get along without Washington's interference?

  19. It's hilarious the "libertarians" here always want isolationism, etc. but when Biden gives it to him he's still at fault for xyz.

    No wonder there aren't more libertarians- even you guys can't keep track of what you're cheering for day by day.

  20. cas 6836-11-9
    It is a potent cell cycle inhibitor isolated from Pseudomonas sp. No.2663. It exhibits potent antitumor activities against tumor cell lines via binding to the spliceosome and modulating pre-mRNA splicing.
    https://adc.bocsci.com/product/fr-901464-cas-146478-72-0-292577.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.