The World Welcomed Biden’s Measured Approach to Ukraine

SPYBALLOON GLOBAL NEWS

The World Welcomed Biden’s Measured Approach to Ukraine

Story By #RiseCelestialStudios

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 posed a blunt test for Washington—one that many said it failed. For example, Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia at the time, urged then-President Joe Biden to “go all in,” but he did not. As a result, former National Security Advisor John Bolton called the Biden administration’s approach “palpably inadequate” and claimed that Biden’s weak response “gave Putin a freebie.” Then-former President Donald Trump, in turn, called Biden’s response “weak” and “dumb.”

These sentiments reflect the common assumption that the United States’ reputation as a global strategic leader and reliable ally rests on dramatic shows of military resolve. That means deploying troops, drawing red lines, and demonstrating that no adversary can challenge U.S. commitments without consequences. But in Ukraine, Biden refused to do that. From the outset, he made it clear that the United States wouldn’t put boots on the ground. Instead, Washington championed economic sanctions against Russia and provided extensive but restricted military aid to Ukraine.

For many commentators, this invited doubts about U.S. credibility and created uncertainty over American willingness to defend other partners facing existential threats like Taiwan. But did it?

New evidence suggests that Biden’s calculated approach was the right one. According to our sweeping new survey of public opinion, which polled 27,250 individuals across 24 countries on six continents, the United States’ reputation was strengthened, not weakened, by its response to Russian aggression throughout 2022 and early 2023. Our survey results suggest that the United States’ determined, but restrained, decision to bolster NATO, impose major sanctions, and provide aid to Ukraine all enhanced trust in the country as a responsible security partner and ally.

Our research shows that ordinary citizens around the world recognized and valued U.S. support for Ukraine. We asked people how U.S. responses to the Russia-Ukraine war affected their trust in the United States as an ally or partner. Their answers highlighted a considerably favorable shift in Washington’s credibility.

In Poland and Sweden, both countries on Russia’s doorstep, confidence in Washington grew significantly, despite the United States’ refusal to intervene directly in the war. Among Poles, the most-cited reasons for increased trust were U.S. military aid to Ukraine and support to NATO. Among Swedes, the combination of economic and diplomatic measures taken by Washington were most popular.

Similarly, in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, the United States emerged from the war’s early days as a much more trustworthy ally. However, it did lose some confidence among publics in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Turkey. Yet our survey respondents in those countries believed that non-military measures should have been prioritized even more over military aid, not that the U.S. moves lacked resolve.

We found that what reassured allies the most was balance: caution without abandonment, firmness without escalation. The most common reason individuals cited for increased confidence in the United States was the belief that Washington appropriately exercised restraint in its response to Russia. Other popular responses included its mix of economic and diplomatic tools (which came second), as well as its provision of military aid to NATO and Ukraine (third and fourth, respectively).

The lesson is clear. Credibility requires signaling that commitments are real but calibrated to circumstances, as well as carefully weighed against escalation risks. In other words, reassurance is a Goldilocks test: not too hot, not too cold.

This insight undercuts a deeply entrenched assumption in U.S. foreign policy. Strategists have long warned that any show of weakness would unravel alliances and embolden adversaries. Many of the sharpest criticisms of the Biden administration’s approach to Ukraine were based on this assumption.

Yet our study shows that overreliance on resolve can be counterproductive. Some allies and partners fear getting ensnared in the wars of others. Some worry that U.S. overreach will stretch resources thin or provoke dangerous escalation. For them, restraint is not weakness; it is prudence.

Turning to East Asia, where many feared that Ukraine would become China’s test case for Taiwan, people in South Korea and even Taiwan itself reported greater confidence in U.S. credibility. Far from interpreting U.S. restraint as abandonment, publics in both countries saw it as evidence of thoughtful crisis management. They appreciated Washington’s use of economic and diplomatic power.

In the global south, restraint also carried more weight. Publics in Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa welcomed a more cautious U.S. posture that avoided the impression of overreach. In these countries, beliefs that Washington was “sufficiently cautious” and that this would “keep the war from escalating” increased trust in the United States. Some still thought the United States was too aggressive. Many Saudi Arabian survey respondents, for example, were more skeptical, disapproving of U.S. military aid to Ukraine and often articulating Washington’s purported responsibility for the war. Saudi public criticism, however, focused on perceived U.S. aggression––not the common critique of Biden’s “weakness.”

This is not to say that resolve is irrelevant. Our data shows that front-line states—those geographically closest to Russia—were more likely to favor stronger U.S. commitments. What’s more, one notable feature of the Russia-Ukraine war has been the latter’s ability to hold its own, even with limited assistance. In a Taiwan contingency, a highly restrained U.S. response might be less effective at repelling an invasion and could be seen as a greater commitment failure.

Still, the clear conclusion remains that reassurance is not one-size-fits-all. Different audiences interpret U.S. credibility in different ways depending on their geography, vulnerability, and political culture. For Washington, the task is not simply to show strength, but to tailor reassurance strategies that are mindful of the diverse audiences watching its every move. Importantly, this includes publics across the world, whose assessments underscore the United States’ global reputation. Even when public opinion differs from the views of a country’s political elite, it can often offer an important enabling or constraining factor for government policy.

As the United States faces simultaneous challenges from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and others, it cannot afford to equate credibility with maximalist shows of force. The best way to stabilize the strategic environment while maintaining global trust may be calibrated restraint privileging economic sanctions, targeted military aid, and defensive forward deployments.

The world has shown that it values U.S. leadership most when it is reliable, prudent, and measured. As Washington charts its next steps, it should remember that credibility is not won by being the loudest or most aggressive actor. It is secured by showing that U.S. commitments are real and responsible. That is the balance that U.S. allies—and its own citizens—want to see today.