The beauty of being nearly octogenarian President Joe Biden is you never have to remember which falsehood you’re telling. You just repeat the new position and hope it sticks.
On Thursday, Biden gave a press conference in Brussels as part of his trip to Europe. As Biden was set to announce a new batch of economic sanctions on prominent Russians, a reporter asked him if these sanctions would force Russian strongman Vladimir Putin to change course when the initial sanctions failed to prevent the invasion of Ukraine.
Biden went into ‘get-off-my-lawn mode’ and accused the reporter of “playing a game” with him by suggesting he said something he had not said.
“Let’s get something straight,” he bellowed at the reporter. “You remember, if you’ve covered me from the beginning, I did not say that, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that – sanctions never deter.”
“The maintenance of sanctions, the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain and the demonstration – why I asked for this NATO meeting today – is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we’re doing – not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year, that’s what will stop him.”
When asked about whether the new sanctions would force Putin to alter his moves, Biden reiterated, “That’s not what I said. You’re playing a game with me. The answer’s no.”
Contrary to Biden’s claims, CNSNews.com, a conservative website, helpfully unpacked many examples from the past few months when his administration made the case he was disputing in Brussels.
On Dec. 7, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that “the fundamental object of the policy the United States is pursuing, in lockstep with our European allies, is to deter a Russian military invasion of further territory of Ukraine.”
U.S. sanctions, Sullivan added, were intended “to try to avert the invasion and deter the invasion into Ukraine. That is the object of our policy right now. Those are the steps we are taking. That’s what President Biden is doing in the messages that he’s sending to President Putin.”
On Jan. 24, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “the most effective deterrent” are the “severe economic sanctions pact.”
The steps under discussion by the White House included imposing “unprecedented” export control measures, she said. That “would hit hard at President Putin’s ambitions.”
“And our assessment,” Psaki added, “is that is most effective as a deterrent tool and not as one we would do in advance.”
On Jan. 25, according to the White House’s website, senior staffers that day were participating in a background media briefing to discuss “Russia Ukraine Economic Deterrence Measures.”
On Jan. 31, Psaki said, “Our view is that sanctions can be an effective tool of deterrence, and the deepening selloff in Russian markets reflects our message – our message to Russia.”
She was back on Feb. 18, saying, “As we’ve talked about a little bit in here, our collective view from our national security team is that sanctions are meant to be a deterrent. They are not – if you put all of the sanctions in place now, what is stopping them from invading?”
Two days later, Vice President Kamala Harris, while at a press conference in Munich, said, “The purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence.”
Harris added that the U.S. and allies were still hopeful for “a diplomatic path out of this moment,” but beyond that, “the deterrence effect, we believe, has merit.” In that same briefing, Harris was asked about Italy harboring reservations about energy sanctions. She answered, “Italy is very much at the table in terms of these conversations about how we can do this in a way that achieves its intended purpose, which – back to the earlier point – is about deterring Russia from invading a sovereign nation.”
On Feb. 20, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN, “The purpose of the sanctions, in the first instance, is to try to deter Russia from going to war. As soon as you trigger them, that deterrent is gone.” Then on NBC, he noted, “As soon as you trigger the sanctions, of course, any deterrent effect they may have is gone.”
On Feb. 22, once Putin declared the “independence” of the “people’s republics” in eastern Ukraine, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics Daleep Singh said, “Sanctions are not an end to themselves. They serve a higher purpose. And that purpose is to deter and prevent. They’re meant to prevent and deter a large-scale invasion of Ukraine that could involve the seizure of major cities, including Kyiv.”
The very next day, Psaki was back, saying, “Deterrence is part of our objective. If he goes further, we will go further. We have a range of tools at our disposal.”
She also said, “Our hope is that Putin will decide to de-escalate, that he will feel the threat of the sanctions, what the impact will be on the Russian economy, on the Russian people, on the people who surround him – they are meant to have a deterrent impact.”
The next day, Feb. 24, Putin invaded Ukraine.
One might ask why we impose sanctions if they don’t work. Nonetheless, Biden may escape on a technicality here. Perhaps he himself did not say sanctions would stop Putin’s attack on Ukraine.
But as CNSNews.com highlighted, his administration did – repeatedly – and if that message did not originate at the top, who in the White House was routinely dispatching underlings out to try to convince the American people economic hardship would stop Putin before he crossed into Ukraine.
Visit Tampafp.com for Politics, Tampa Area Local News, Sports, and National Headlines. Support journalism by clicking here to our GiveSendGo or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here.
Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook Here Or Twitter Here.