On Biden's Strategic Silence
There is a nuance and sophistication in how the Biden administration sees and does things in the gladiatorial fundament.
Its not what President Joe Biden says, oftentimes, but what is implied between the lines. In the liminal spaces. “Speech is silver,” the old saying goes, “silence is golden.” There is a nuance and sophistication in how the Biden administration sees and does things in the gladiatorial fundament. And there is also a nuance and sophistication in how the Biden administration remains studiously silent when that, too, is needed.
Contrast this against his predecessor, the chaos President — undisciplined, abrasive and loud. Foreign governments could see Trump’s “foreign policy” coming from a mile away and anticipate it. They could charm him with cake and ceremonial sword dances and that sort of thing. That’s really all it took to gain — at least momentary — trust from Trump. Remember how much Trump loved Xi at the beginning of his (mercifully) brief Presidency? And remember how much turbulence he had with Xi at the end?
President Biden, at age 80, is many things. But mercurial he is not.
And we needed a non-mercurial President this weekend past. As Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, owner of the private mercenary Wagner Group, swiftly took the strategic southwestern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, the Biden administration remained quiet, holding its cards close to the vest. As Prigozhin continued his march, advancing to within 200 kilometers of Moscow, Biden’s public silence spoke volumes. Russia, we cannot fail to note, is a nuclear power.
More than once this weekend I wondered, anxiously, what was going on in diplomatic back channels? The encrypted telecommunications across the Atlantic must have been scorchers. What was Biden saying to Putin? What was Biden saying to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky? What was Biden saying to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen? What was Biden saying to brand new Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (Finland shares a border with Russia)? And speaking of shared borders, how did Biden calm our nervous allies in Eastern Europe? We now know that he spoke to President Emmanuel Macron of France, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the United Kingdom; but did he speak to Erdogan, and, if so, what did he say?
Enquiring minds
Clearly, United States intelligence was aware of the buildup to Prigozhin’s “couplet.” We know that now also. “Intelligence officials briefed congressional leaders known as the Gang of Eight earlier this week concerning Wagner group movements and equipment buildups near Russia, two of the people said,” reports CNN. This intel was shared with some allies, including our special ally, the UK. We also know that Biden spoke to European allies to make sure everyone was on the same page while making clear to Putin that there was no NATO involvement in Prigozhin’s push.
But beyond that was this .. curious public … silence. What was the meaning of that thusness? From The Independent:
The president’s words came after the White House and broader administration largely kept a close but silent watch over the weekend as the events in Russia unfolded; the Department of Defence released a statement indicating that the US would remain committed to the defence of Ukraine on Saturday, but offered no details about the broader outlook of US intelligence and defence officials on the continued viability of Mr Putin’s government.
The lone exception was Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday that the situation raised questions about the strength of Mr Putin’s grip on power.
"This is an unfolding story, and I think we're in the midst of a moving picture," Mr Blinken said. "We haven't seen the last act. We're watching it very closely."
Silence. Watching. Waiting.
Again, it is impossible to imagine the Trump administration showing this much maturity, to which I thank the Lord for Biden. But — far more important — Putin is undeniably diminished. There is no one outside of Putin’s propaganda machine that does not see that fact plainly, whether in Europe or Asia or the African continent or the Americas. What Biden (and Zelensky, for that matter) do with the serendipity of Putin’s diminishment, who knows? But the strategic silence, as the saying goes, speaks volumes.
This reminds me of another very recent example of Biden’s strategic silences. Earlier this month, the President scored a hard-fought victory in stopping a national default with a recalcitrant Congress. But instead of going on a media tour, or bragging like Bill Clinton might, he remained silent — strategically silent. Peter Baker of the New York Times captures exactly how and why Biden responded at the time:
The president calculated that the more he bragged that the deal was a good one for his side, the more he would inflame Republicans on the other side, jeopardizing the chances of pushing the agreement through the narrowly divided House. His reticence stood in striking contrast to his negotiating partner, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has been running all over the Capitol in recent days asserting that the deal was a “historic” victory for fiscal conservatives.
While Mr. Biden knew that would aggravate progressives in his own party, he gambled that he could keep enough of them in line without public chest-beating and figured that it was more important to let Mr. McCarthy claim the win to minimize a revolt on the hard right that could put his speakership in danger. Indeed, in private briefing calls following the agreement, White House officials told Democratic allies that they believed they got a good deal, but urged their surrogates not to say that publicly lest it upset the delicate balance.
Chest-beating is a good way to describe bragging in that particular situation. Macho; testosteronal; alpha; stupid. And what good would it have done? Yes, Biden might have scored some points on the talking head shows, but what else? We have too much of that in the world today, already. Allowing Kevin McCarthy that “victory” created a level of trust between the two leaders, who will have to work together on serious matters of state for the foreseeable future. It was a far-sighted political decision on Biden’s part. Allowing Speaker McCarthy that “victory” created a prolegomena to the possibility of trust between the two men. At least on issues where the politics is not too messy. It also strengthened McCarthy’s Speakership, bolstering it against the governmental chaos that might result in the event that he fell. Would Biden rather deal with a Speaker Jim Jordan? Scalise? Stefanik?
President Biden’s strategic silence served him well in the aftermath of the debt ceiling negotiations and, for now, it is serving him well in the rapidly evolving situation in Russia. Chest-beating is a young man’s game. And Biden — the pollsters keep reminding us — is not a young man. That having been said, strategic silence is decidedly not a young man’s game. It takes a certain mix of forethought, patience, wisdom and lack of ego — all of which are qualities that often elude young, testosteronal men.
I suspect that President Biden learned this particular skill set from his years on the Foreign Relations Committee, dealing with hideous, unevolved people like Jesse Helms in order to get things done for the good of the country. And if it took Biden 80 years to become so proficient in the art of strategic silence, then, dammit, perhaps his age isn’t as much of a liability as the mainstream media like to make it out to be.
"Regarding the Wagner group: Obviously we are very closely looking at the future of that group, because they had been a most successful organization during the last year. They were very, very brutal, very, very rough guys. Extremely immoral. But at the same time, they had a very different doctrine, a very different approach. And that approach allowed them to capture — in six months, they captured a city. " (Andriy Zagorodnyuk/Semafor)
Trump “despises” the Murdochs. (Gabriel Sherman/VF)
"In recent days, Prigozhin has emerged as a character almost custom-made for the glare of global media interest: a petty crook turned hot-dog vendor turned ritzy caterer who served caviar to George W. Bush, then founded a private military empire, then used it to puncture the authority of an autocrat once seen as untouchable, if only in the realm of media archetype. In the course of his mutiny, as The Intercept’s Alice Speri noted yesterday, Prigozhin deftly spun his preferred narrative to the public, leveraging his decade-plus of experience in the field of information warfare." (Jon Allsop/CJR)
Misinformation spreads, but fact-checking has leveled off (Reporters Lab)
“Supreme Court Decides Moore v. Harper, Rejecting Maximalist Version of Independent State Legislature Theory But Giving Federal Courts a Chance to Second Guess Some State Rulings as ‘Transgressing the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review’ (Election Law Blog)