The G-word
Menlo, Iowa, may seem a surprising spot from which to issue major foreign policy declarations. But such is the nature of the American presidency. One minute you are cheering Midwestern farmers with the news of a suspension of ethanol fuel regulations, the next you are describing war crimes committed thousands of miles away.
The two are connected, of course: Biden was in Iowa yesterday to tackle the domestic fall out of the war in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the thing that Biden’s trip to Menlo will be remembered for was his characterization of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as “genocide.” Asked about his choice of words by reporters after the speech, Biden said: “Yes, I called it genocide. It has become clearer and clearer that Putin is just trying to wipe out the idea of … even being able to be Ukrainian.” He added: “It’s different than it was last week. More evidence is coming out of the, literally, the horrible things that the Russians have done in Ukraine. And we’re going to only learn more and more about the devastation.”
The use of the G-word constitutes a significant rhetorical escalation from Biden, who before had been willing to call Russian atrocities in Ukraine war crimes and had labelled Putin a “butcher,” but whose officials had, until yesterday, been careful to stop short of the accusation of genocide. Unlike many previous provocative statements by Biden, this one seemed deliberate and pre-meditated. The administration is reportedly preparing to announce $750 million in additional assistance to Ukraine on top of the $1.7 billion the US has sent since the start of the war. According to the Washington Post, the administration is mulling a major expansion in the weaponry being sent by the US, with “howitzer cannons, coastal defense drones and protective suits to safeguard personnel in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack” all on the table.
The same day that Biden accused Russia of genocide, Vladimir Putin declared peace talks a “dead end.” Meanwhile, the US and other Western intelligence agencies are working to verify claims that Russian forces deployed chemical weapons in Mariupol on Monday. Biden had previously said that a Russian chemical attack would be responded to “in kind” by America. (With characteristic lack of clarity, Biden didn’t really mean “in kind,” but, as officials later explained, proportionate.)
Just as the conflict in Ukraine is entering a dangerous new phase, so too is America’s involvement. But it remains unclear what the administration sees as its goal in the crisis. The president is insistent that he is offering all the support to Ukraine he can without that tipping into a response that risks escalation or the outbreak of a wider conflict. If only things were so simple: it’s far from clear where that line is. And yet, at least rhetorically, Biden continues to up the ante.
“True words of a true leader,” said Volodymyr Zelensky in response to Biden’s remarks. “Calling things by their names is essential to stand up to evil.” French President Emmanuel Macron was more circumspect. “I would be cautious with such words because these two peoples (Russians and Ukrainians) are brothers,” he said in a television interview. After describing Russia’s actions in Ukraine as brutal, he added: “But at the same time I look at the facts and I want to try as much as possible to continue to be able to stop this war and to rebuild peace. I’m not sure that verbal escalations serve this cause.”
What makes the crisis so difficult for Biden is that both Zelensky and Macron are right. And yet the president will eventually have to prioritize one over the other. Biden claims to be “standing up to evil” and working to “stop this war and to rebuild peace” (to use the two presidents’ words). Both admirable goals, but not necessarily ones that can both be pursued at once.
*** Sign up to receive the DC Diary in your inbox on weekdays ***
Hawkeye hiccups
Iowa Democrats may have been graced by the president’s presence yesterday, but that was a rare bright spot for the party in the Hawkeye State. Battling to save the “first in the nation” caucus status after the botched reporting of the results in 2020, the party’s midterm plans are now in trouble thanks to an administrative snafu. A judge has ruled that Abby Finkenauer cannot appear on the ballot for the Democratic Senate primary in June because her campaign failed to collect enough petition signatures.
Finkenauer, a former one-term congresswoman who lost her seat in the last cycle, had been seen as the frontrunner in the race for the nomination to challenge veteran Republican Chuck Grassley. She has not taken the news especially gracefully. “This misguided, midnight ruling is an outrageous and partisan gift to the Washington Republicans who orchestrated this meritless legal action,” she said. “We are exploring all of our options to fight back hard against this meritless partisan attack, and to ensure that the voices of Iowans will be heard at the ballot box.”
Finkenauer or no Finkenauer, no one expects a Democrat to topple Grassley in November. But a high-profile candidate’s legal woes hasn’t done much to lift the stench of incompetence that now surrounds Iowa Dems.
Gaetz’s rap tribute
Trumpist cringe reached new heights this week as part-time legislator, full-time MAGA world celebrity and occasional subject of FBI sex trafficking investigations Matt Gaetz finds himself being praised in a rap song.
Hardly the shy and retiring type, Gaetz tweeted a link to the video, adding “@forgiatoblow47 going to the top of the charts w this!”
What you should be reading today
Teresa Mull: Biden cracks down even on green energy
Amber Athey: Georgetown prof curses out anti-mask students
Harry J. Kazianis: The next phase or the Ukraine war will be bloody
Yuval Levin, National Review: From Trump party to Trump faction
Conor Sen, Bloomberg: What to expect as inflation is getting more entrenched
Jason Furman, Wall Street Journal: Even in a hot economy, wages aren’t keeping up with inflation
Poll watch
President Biden Job Approval
Approve: 41.3 percent
Disapprove: 52.7 percent
Net approval: -11.4 (RCP Average)
Alaska Congressional Special Election
Sarah Palin (R): 31 percent
Al Gross (I): 26 percent
Nick Begich (R): 21 percent
Christopher Constant (D): 7 percent (Remington Research)
