Supporters of strategic ambiguity, the concept by which the United States leaves its enemies wondering what we might do in certain situations, believe it deters hostile actions by the likes of Russia and China. President Obama prefers the opposite—he likes to telegraph to the world and, most disturbingly, to our enemies what the United States won’t do, leaving many countries in the wake of Moscow and Beijing vulnerable to aggression by their larger neighbors.
The Washington Post once described Obama’s approach as “gratuitous clarity.” Such clarity is incredibly dangerous for global order as well as demoralizing to our allies around the world. Essentially, Obama is telling them that if they get into trouble with their bigger neighbors, “Good luck—but don’t call us.”
In an interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama said, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” When pressed, Obama elaborated: “[T]his is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.”
Actually, Mr. President, you’re removing that ambiguity entirely. You are telling Putin he can get away with his invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea without ever having to really worry about the response of the United States. You are giving him a green light to do the same thing in Syria, as well as in Georgia and other neighboring states. One hopes Obama will draw the line when it comes to NATO members, such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; otherwise he will destroy the Alliance that has kept the peace in Europe more or less since the end of World War II.
“I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy,” Obama continued, “is that the president doesn’t exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn’t maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy.”
“Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine,” Obama added, “they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years.”
Reading such words of clarity from the American President is chilling. If I were living in Ukraine or Georgia or Moldova or Kazakhstan, I would pack my bags and move to a safer place. I would do the same if I thought China might interpret President Obama’s comments as a green light to move militarily against other countries in Asia.
To be clear, those who have criticized Obama’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have not argued that we should go to war with Russia. As often is the case, Obama is posing a straw man argument. Instead, critics, as well as huge bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, have argued that the United States should provide lethal weapons to Ukraine to help it defend itself against further Russian moves. Obama has refused to take this step, leaving Ukraine on its own. With his latest comments, Obama is now letting Russia know that it could go further without worrying how the United States might react.
This is an abdication of the kind of leadership the United States has maintained for the entire post-World War II era. Obama is telling the world that we no longer will act to deter aggression by kleptocratic, authoritarian regimes and that smaller countries are left to fend for themselves. He also is rejecting long-standing U.S. policy of support for other countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity.
President Obama’s words will make the world a more dangerous place, and his failure to do anything about the crisis in Syria has already created enough problems. We have not been the world’s policeman for every conflict and disaster (see Rwanda in 1994, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). But we have acted, rather successfully—with exceptions like Georgia in 2008—as a restraint against destabilizing aggression by the likes of Russia and China because of strategic ambiguity. Now, with the President’s comments, we are removing any doubts leaders in Moscow and Beijing may have had and making it easy for them to engage in hostile acts.
The last year of most American presidencies brings challenges from overseas bullies who see a lame-duck President on his way out. Through his comments to the Atlantic, Obama has made his last year in office especially lame.