War

On September 1, 2021, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the White House to meet with President Biden, marking his first official US visit. Although Zelensky gained popularity as a relatable “everyman” due to his comedic background and his portrayal of a fictional president, his actual presidency had been defined by Ukraine’s struggle for independence and the ongoing conflict with Russian-backed forces in the Donbas. Zelensky pressed Biden for NATO membership, a request that Biden was reluctant to support due to its potential impact on US-Russia relations. Former ambassador to Moscow and CIA Director Bill Burns had long viewed NATO membership for Ukraine as an unacceptable provocation for Russia, warning that such an action would severely strain US-Russia relations.

In October 2021, US intelligence provided the Biden administration with decisive evidence of Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine using 175,000 troops. Intelligence officials, including the CIA and director of national intelligence, detailed the invasion strategy, including specific cities targeted and logistics for maintaining control post-invasion. President Biden and his advisors were stunned by the intensity of Putin’s intentions and questioned why he would take such drastic action despite likely economic and diplomatic fallout with the West. While Biden prioritized a careful response to avoid direct conflict, he directed his team to support Ukraine’s defense, build an international coalition, and prevent the crisis if possible. Secretary of State Blinken worked to prepare allies, many of whom doubted the severity of the threat.

At the G20 meeting in Rome in October 2021, President Biden held a closed-door discussion with key European leaders, including Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Olaf Scholz, to address escalating intelligence on Putin’s potential invasion of Ukraine. While Biden shared detailed intelligence, European leaders expressed doubt that Putin would actually proceed, suggesting instead that his actions might be more about leverage. Johnson, however, viewed the threat as credible based on his own intelligence sources, and he challenged Putin directly by phone, assuring him that Ukraine’s NATO membership was unlikely in the near future. Putin’s dismissive response left Johnson feeling caught in a trap, frustrated by the Russian leader’s manipulative tactics and the challenges they posed to NATO’s open-door policy.

In October 2021, as intelligence confirmed Putin’s plans to invade Ukraine, President Biden and his administration debated the best way to confront Russia. After careful deliberation, CIA Director Bill Burns was chosen as the emissary, given his extensive knowledge of Putin and his experience as a former ambassador to Russia. Burns delivered a stern warning to Russian leaders, including Putin, detailing the consequences of an invasion and emphasizing the US’s knowledge of Russian plans. Putin, who appeared unfazed, reiterated his belief in Russia’s right to control Ukraine. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin engaged European allies and Ukrainian leaders to prepare for a possible invasion. Despite US efforts to underscore the urgency, some European and Ukrainian officials remained skeptical, interpreting the Russian buildup as a bluff for leverage. As tensions mounted, the US administration faced the challenge of fortifying Ukraine and rallying NATO without inciting a direct conflict with Russia.

In November 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Paris on a dual mission: to mend strained relations with French President Emmanuel Macron after a US-Australia submarine deal sidelined France and to inform Macron of the US intelligence on Putin’s invasion plans for Ukraine. Harris briefed Macron on the imminent threat, emphasizing Putin’s perception of European disunity and US leadership gaps, and she also encouraged Macron to lead Europe in a unified response. Although Macron was initially skeptical about Putin’s intent, he agreed to bolster Eastern European defenses and to reinforce NATO’s presence. These discussions helped restore diplomatic rapport, as evidenced by Macron’s public support for Harris during her address at the Paris Peace Forum.

In December 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken attended the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation) meeting in Stockholm, seeking to unify European allies against the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Blinken listened as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced NATO and accused the West of interfering in sovereign states, a common refrain in Russian rhetoric. In a direct exchange, Blinken challenged Lavrov’s narrative on the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and exposed Russia’s failures under the Minsk agreements, which had aimed to quell conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Later, in private talks, Lavrov dismissed the idea of an invasion, deflecting blame onto NATO’s perceived encroachment. Blinken observed Lavrov’s convincing yet unfounded claims but noted that Lavrov might not be fully privy to Putin’s plans. Despite sharing US intelligence with other European partners, Blinken encountered skepticism, underscoring the challenge of aligning international perspectives on the impending threat.

In response to allies’ skepticism over Russia’s military intentions toward Ukraine, President Biden and his advisors decided to adopt an aggressive information-sharing strategy. The US intelligence community initially resisted the idea, but Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines eventually launched a strategy called “strategic downgrade,” allowing declassified intelligence to be widely shared to highlight the Russian threat. This unprecedented transparency culminated in a December 2021 Washington Post story revealing Russia’s mobilization of up to 175,000 troops along Ukraine’s border. The move aimed to undercut Russia’s narratives and to warn the world about a potential invasion, echoing the publicized intelligence tactics of the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, despite this bold approach, it was unclear if the transparency would effectively deter Putin.

On December 7, 2021, President Biden engaged in a video call with President Putin to discuss the escalating situation in Ukraine. Biden warned Putin of severe consequences if Russia were to invade, emphasizing that the US would support Ukraine and impose heavy economic sanctions. Despite Putin’s calm and methodical tone, he continued to demand security guarantees from NATO, including the prevention of Ukraine’s membership. While Biden attempted to explore any legitimate Russian security concerns, he left the call with a firm belief that Putin was set on invading Ukraine, and he interpreted Putin’s reticence to negotiate as a sign of his resolve.

President Biden firmly resolved not to deploy US troops to Ukraine, prioritizing clarity in America’s stance. In a candid Oval Office discussion, Biden and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan debated whether leaving the possibility of troop deployment ambiguous could serve as a deterrent. Ultimately, Biden decided against any bluff, emphasizing the US’s moral and legal obligations solely to NATO allies. Publicly announcing this stance on December 8, he sought to manage expectations among allies and Ukrainians alike. Biden pledged support through military aid, albeit limited, in order to prevent advanced US technology from falling into Russian hands. Concerns persisted that this decision might embolden Putin, though Biden and his team believed that clear communication outweighed the risks of ambiguity.

On December 30, 2021, President Biden engaged in a tense 50-minute phone call with President Putin—one of their most contentious exchanges yet. Putin objected vehemently to US sanctions and accused NATO of potentially placing nuclear weapons near Russia’s borders. The conversation escalated as Putin even referenced nuclear war, which Biden firmly countered, warning that nuclear conflict is unwinnable. Biden privately expressed frustration over the Obama administration’s insufficient response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and Donbas, vowing to prevent a repeat of such unchecked aggression. This chapter reveals Biden’s deep-seated commitment to countering Putin and the weight he placed on the Ukraine crisis in defining his presidency.

In January 2022, CIA Director Bill Burns was sent to Kyiv to personally warn Ukrainian President Zelensky about the impending Russian invasion. Burns shared detailed intelligence that pointed to a full-scale invasion targeting Kyiv, with Russian Special Forces intending to assassinate Zelensky and install a pro-Russian government. Though Zelensky appreciated the warning, he expressed concern that public US statements about an invasion were harming Ukraine’s economy, and he remained skeptical of the likelihood of a large-scale assault. Burns also alerted Zelensky to potential Russian false-flag operations designed to justify invasion by claiming Ukrainian aggression. The US intelligence community debated declassifying and publicizing this intelligence to preempt Russian disinformation.

In a January 19, 2022, press conference, President Biden suggested that a “minor incursion” by Russia might prompt a divided response, which sparked confusion and unease among allies. Ukrainian President Zelensky promptly responded, asserting Ukraine’s sovereignty and resilience, while US officials worked to contain the diplomatic fallout. Biden continued to seek compromise, instructing Secretary of State Antony Blinken to discuss any genuine Russian security concerns with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva. Blinken approached Lavrov privately, seeking clarity on whether Russia’s stance stemmed from security anxieties or deeper ideological motivations regarding Ukraine’s sovereignty. Lavrov denied plans for an invasion, though US intelligence revealed that he was not fully informed of Putin’s intentions.

In January 2022, former President Donald Trump began considering a potential run for the presidency in 2024. Over lunch with Senator Lindsey Graham, Trump drew an analogy between his political strategy and the approach of legendary golfer Jack Nicklaus, who often waited patiently for his opponents to falter before making a move. Trump likened himself to Nicklaus, saying that he would “hang around” and see if Biden’s presidency encountered setbacks that would open a path for his return.

As Russia’s threat of invasion loomed larger in January 2022, US intelligence reported Russian field hospitals and additional military supplies along Ukraine’s borders, signaling imminent action. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, aiming to prevent an Afghanistan-like crisis, publicly urged Americans to leave Ukraine. Despite diplomatic efforts from leaders like French President Macron, who reported assurances from Putin, President Biden believed the invasion to be inevitable. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Europe to reinforce NATO solidarity. In a tense meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference, Harris attempted to convey the seriousness of the threat, emphasizing the need for preparation and contingency plans. Zelensky, however, was hesitant, wary that public acknowledgment could destabilize Ukraine’s economy and provide Russia with a pretext for escalation.

On February 21, 2022, President Putin held a public session of Russia’s Security Council, officially setting the stage for war by moving to recognize the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent. In a televised, orchestrated spectacle, Putin called on top officials to voice support, intimidating those who wavered, including intelligence chief Sergei Naryshkin. The session’s purpose was clear: to justify Putin’s military ambitions in Ukraine. President Biden responded swiftly, blocking economic activities in the separatist regions, while Germany suspended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. Meanwhile, Russian forces began positioning along Ukraine’s border, intensifying the crisis. The following day, former President Trump controversially praised Putin’s tactics as “savvy,” reflecting on past conversations in which he sensed Putin’s intentions toward Ukraine.

On February 24, 2022, Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine under the guise of a “special military operation.” Explosions erupted in major cities, and Russian troops advanced from multiple directions, triggering a rapid response from global leaders. President Zelensky remained in Kyiv, encouraging Ukrainians to resist, as US officials like President Biden offered support but maintained limits, such as refusing a no-fly zone. Russian forces initially aimed to decapitate Ukraine’s government and seize Kyiv, but logistical failures, resistance from Ukrainian forces, and tactical mistakes thwarted their advance. Ukrainians showed fierce defiance, symbolized by episodes like the bold response from guards on Snake Island. Russian forces eventually withdrew from Kyiv after heavy casualties, leaving behind evidence of war crimes and a shattered image of their military prowess. Reflecting on the invasion, US officials noted their miscalculations about both the Ukrainian resistance and the European response, which ultimately bolstered Ukraine’s resilience.

Public figures on the far right of the American political spectrum—notably, Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson—expressed controversial perspectives on Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Bannon, in his podcast War Room, downplayed Ukraine’s sovereignty, labeling the nation a “concept” rather than a real country and criticizing President Biden’s prioritization of Ukrainian borders over those of the US. Carlson similarly reframed the conflict, calling it a “border dispute” and urging Americans to question their animosity toward Putin, contrasting him with domestic cultural and political opponents. Both figures leveraged the crisis to stoke divisive narratives within the US, diverting focus from the invasion’s humanitarian impact and geopolitical significance.

President Biden reacted intensely to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, viewing it as an existential threat to democracy and international stability. Expressing both anger and a determination to oppose Russian aggression, Biden privately described Putin as “evil” and insisted that his ambitions extended far beyond Ukraine. Convinced that unchecked Russian expansion could endanger Eastern Europe, Biden and his advisors deliberated making bold moves to reinforce NATO, including supporting Finland and Sweden’s potential membership. As public opinion in these countries shifted toward joining NATO, Biden identified a strategic opportunity to strengthen the alliance, positioning Finland and Sweden as critical assets to Europe’s security.

In early March 2022, as the invasion of Ukraine intensified, Senator Lindsey Graham stirred controversy by publicly suggesting that Russians should assassinate Vladimir Putin, likening it to removing Hitler during World War II. This extreme proposal gained mixed reactions, with White House officials clarifying that this assertion did not represent US policy. Meanwhile, Graham and former President Trump discussed Putin’s threat of nuclear escalation during a visit to Mar-a-Lago. Trump voiced dissatisfaction with the lack of direct US intervention and speculated about aggressive countermeasures, including using submarines as a deterrent and even humorously suggesting that US fighter jets bomb Russia while disguised as Chinese forces. Graham observed Trump’s shifting stance on Putin, noting Trump’s growing realization of the appeal of a more assertive stance against the Russian leader.