President Joe Biden’s speech in Warsaw, Poland, after his historic visit to Kyiv — where he spent time with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — did not include any unexpected information. It was a notable statement of American support for Ukraine and U.S. allies, however, as Russian forces press forward with their latest offensive.
The image alone was a powerful one. Biden stood framed by stairways leading to Kubicki Arkades, part of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, creating a backdrop that was almost reminiscent of a presidential inauguration. With tens of thousands of people in the crowd and Beyonce and Coldplay blaring on the loudspeakers, Biden’s speech was the closest that international diplomacy comes to a rock concert. It also came a month short of the one-year anniversary of another impassioned speech Biden delivered in Warsaw in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion. In both addresses, he called for unity among the Western allies and a commitment to Kyiv for “as long as it takes.”
After a year of war, America and its allies’ hopes that this would be a short war have now been confronted by the realities of a long conflict whose outcome will be affected by a variety of factors. Success for U.S. priorities is far from assured, but Biden’s calls for a continued commitment to Ukraine did not ring hollow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s belief that Ukraine would quickly collapse has been proven wrong, Kyiv remains strong and free, and Europe is united against Russian aggression. Perhaps most importantly, Biden echoed remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris at the Wehrkunde Conference a few days earlier that Russia has committed genocide and crimes against humanity — a searing indictment of Putin. This could suggest the Biden Administration seeks regime change in Russia, but it begs a critical question -- How do you negotiate with someone you hold responsible for crimes against humanity?
Biden’s speech was not designed to be a direct rebuttal to a speech Putin delivered a few hours earlier, but the images alone served as one. Putin’s speech, in contrast, was long, staid, and addressed to a crowd of orderly senior Russian political figures and members of the military. It was far from the borderline celebration that Biden enjoyed. Still, the Russian leader appeared to double down in his determination to “win” and showed no hint of having any interest in negotiations.
Biden’s remarks were a muscular response that pointed a clear finger, as he identified Putin by name 10 times and even argued the former KGB agent could end the war with “one word.” The president also sought to refute Putin’s claims that the West threatened Russia or wanted to destroy the Russian Federation. What was evident was that Biden wanted to describe the conflict as a war of choice by an aggressive “craven” Russian leader — not a war against the Russian people.
In Putin’s speech, he continued his effort to reshape the narrative of the war. At its onset, he described “the special military operation” as an effort to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine, but in his latest remarks Putin described the conflict as one that was against the West and existential in character. The Russian president sought to convince his populace that this is a “people’s war” or the 21st century version of the “Great Patriotic War,” which is how Russians refer to World War II.
The Death of New START
The most troubling and remarkable item in Putin’s speech was his announcement that Russia would suspend participation in New START. Signed in Prague in 2010 as a continuation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, New START placed a ceiling on the number of deployed warheads Russia and the U.S. could have at one time as well as a ceiling for launchers (bombers, ICBMs and missile launching nuclear submarines). This was enforced by on-site inspections and notifications requiring continuous dialogue and communications between Moscow and Washington.
Due to the COVID pandemic, the last New START onsite inspection occurred in March 2020. The U.S. proposed a meeting of the consultative committee of Russian and American experts to resume inspections in November 2022. At the last moment, Moscow announced it would not attend due to “technical reasons.” As a result, the State Department alerted Congress that Russia was non-compliant with the treaty. Russia continues that noncompliance with this suspension. While Putin’s move is of questionable legality, as the treaty contains no provision for either side to suspend participation, Russia is not in “material breach” of the agreement if both sides continue to cap the number of deployed warheads. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the country intends to adhere to existing limits “within the life cycle” of the treaty, which is set to expire in 2026. Putin has said, however, that Russia will increase its nuclear forces by deploying new ICBM missiles, hypersonic missiles and nuclear submarines. Many American experts are skeptical, however, that in the aftermath of the Ukraine War that Moscow will have the resources to do so.
Still, this raises fears that Putin’s decisions could spur a nuclear arms race that the world hasn’t seen since the Cold War. For 50 years, the U.S. and Russia — the world’s two largest nuclear powers — have had an agreement in place to cap their ability to produce or deploy strategic nuclear weapons. Tensions between the two nations over the war in Ukraine have increased concerns that Russia and the U.S. will return to stockpiling nuclear weapons, as Putin seeks to use nuclear leverage in the ongoing conflict and in Russia’s relationship with the United States.
Russia is possibly in a better position to expand its nuclear capabilities because of its large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons — smaller warheads designed for use on the battlefield. The U.S., meanwhile, is in the midst of a large-scale modernization of its strategic nuclear Triad and associated command and control. Since both countries have enough warheads to wipe each other off the planet, the number of weapons is less interesting than the methods of delivery. That is where the U.S. could have greater flexibility and creativity through its current modernization efforts.
What Comes Next?
It remains to be seen what Congress’s priorities will be in the aftermath of these recent events. Putin’s nuclear threats could spur many U.S. lawmakers to push for more investments in nuclear weapons to enhance U.S. deterrence posture. Additional defense spending could also be split between nuclear weapons and an expansion of defensive surveillance through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in the aftermath of the Chinese spy balloon debacle. How the Pentagon spends the $858 billion allocated in fiscal year 2023 could be decided by other shifts in defense priorities since the start of the Ukraine war and the events of the past couple months.
These are incredibly significant considerations. The U.S. and many countries are also contemplating dramatic increases in defense spending which will place new requirements on their defense industries. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has prioritized next-generation weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, cyberwarfare and artificial intelligence. Now it must once again return to the basics and examine its production of conventional weapons, such as 155mm artillery shells and mortars, which has diminished dramatically since the end of the Cold War.
Clearly, the Ukraine war will continue to have a major impact on defense, politics, diplomacy and the global economy. China, among other countries, emphasized at the UN Security Council its fear of the use of nuclear weapons or damage to nuclear power plants, such as the Zaporizhzhia facility in east Ukraine. There is also the danger of the expiration of the ongoing grain deal next month. With Turkey currently struggling in the aftermath of a series of massive earthquakes, the end of that agreement could lead to a spike in commodity prices and the threat of famine.
One final question that remains is whether there is a half-life to American support, particularly within the Republican party. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader from Kentucky, attempted to assuage concerns by leading the largest congressional delegation to ever attend the recent Munich Security Conference. He suggested that the Republican party’s flagging support for U.S. allies “have been greatly exaggerated.” Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, a presidential hopeful for 2024, also recently criticized the Biden Administration for moving too slow in its support for Ukraine. But there are many on the far-right of the Republican party and the far-left of the Democratic party who would like to see a full U.S. withdrawal from supporting this war and moving the nation in a more isolationist direction.
But they are unlikely to find an appetite for dramatic reductions in defense spending, as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress react to growing tensions in the Pacific and conflict in Europe that will continue for a long time.
