Russia and Ukraine: Why President Joe Biden won't send American troops to Ukraine?

US President Joe Biden has made tremendous diplomatic efforts in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

His administration relentlessly spread "apocalyptic" warnings of an impending invasion - which turned out to be true - and claimed to be putting the international order to the test.

But Biden also made it clear that Americans are not ready to fight, unlike the Russians. In addition, Biden ruled out sending troops to Ukraine to rescue US citizens if necessary. He has already recalled military advisers and observers from the troops that operated in the country.

So why did Biden draw this red line in the most important foreign policy crisis of his presidency?

There are no interests related to national security

Firstly, Ukraine is not a neighbor of the United States, it does not have a US military base, it does not have strategic oil reserves, and it is also not a major trading partner.

But the lack of national interests has not prevented former presidents in the past from sacrificing blood and money on behalf of others.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton intervened militarily in the war that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia. In 2011, Barack Obama did the same during the Libyan Civil War, and the reason he intervened in both wars was mainly for humanitarian and human rights reasons.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush justified the creation of an international coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, saying that it was done to protect the rule of law from the law of the jungle.

Senior security officials of the Biden administration used similar language to describe the Russian threat to international principles of peace and security.

But they promoted economic warfare with restrictive sanctions as a retaliatory measure, not military operations.

Biden does not adhere to the policy of military intervention

This is due to President Biden's instinct based on "military non-interference." Of course, he supported his country's military actions in the 90s of the last century to resolve the ethnic conflict in the Balkans and voted for the unsuccessful American invasion of Iraq in 2003, but since then he has become more cautious in the use of force by the American military.

He rejected Obama's intervention in Libya, as well as his refusal to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, and the current US president is determined to defend his decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan last year, despite the chaos that accompanied this case and the subsequent humanitarian catastrophe.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a diplomat very close to Biden and who shaped the president's foreign policy during his work with him for more than twenty years, defined the national security of the United States as more focused on combating climate change and global diseases. and the competition with China is only in the policy of military intervention.

The United States doesn't want war either

A poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center showed that 72% of Americans said their country should play a "limited" role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict or not interfere at all.

They are focused on wage issues, especially high inflation, which Biden should pay attention to ahead of the midterm elections.

In Washington, the crisis is absorbing the efforts of lawmakers, the Democratic and Republican parties, who demand the toughest sanctions. But even authoritative militant voices, such as Republican Senator Ted Cruz, do not want Biden to send American troops to Ukraine and "unleash a war with Putin."

Republican Senator Marco Rubio, another foreign policy hawk, also said that a war between the world's two largest nuclear powers would not benefit anyone.

The danger of confrontation between two superpowers

And this is the main thing - Putin has stocks of nuclear warheads.

Vice President Biden was forthright in saying that he did not want to start a "global war" with the possibility of a direct conflict between American and Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

Earlier this month, the president told NBC News: "We are not dealing with a terrorist organization, we are dealing with one of the largest armies in the world. This is a very difficult situation, and things can get worse at a crazy rate," he said.

There is no binding contract

There is also no treaty with obligations that would force the United States to take such a risk.

According to Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty-NATO-any attack on a NATO member State is an attack on the other members, so this article requires all members to protect each other.

Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard University and a foreign policy specialist, believes that the refusal of Washington and NATO members to compromise with Russia is practically meaningless because of their unwillingness to demonstrate the possibility of using military force in their positions.

Are the goals changing

In fact, President Biden sent troops to Europe and relocated troops already there, supporting NATO allies bordering Ukraine and Russia.

The administration saw this as an attempt to convince nervous former Soviet republics of Putin's broader goal of pressuring NATO to withdraw its troops from its eastern flank.

But this week's invasion of Ukraine has raised concerns about the possibility of a wider conflict, an accidental or deliberate attack by Russia.

The latter would be a significant escalation, referring to article V of NATO's common defense obligations. But both can put American troops on alert.