Follow us on social

2022-03-02t035416z_1753722928_rc23us91600h_rtrmadp_3_usa-biden-scaled

State of the Union: Biden's Manichean moment

He is certainly not the first president to use the pulpit to frame his foreign policy as an epic struggle between good and evil.

Analysis | Europe

“There is a massacre unfolding in the heart of Europe.”

This was the last thing said by the ABC network announcer before President Biden came into the House chamber Tuesday evening for his State of the Union Address. It was a nice set-up, one surmises, given the language Biden used shortly after to describe the situation in Ukraine, and the role of the United States in a world divided now by “democracies” and “autocracies.”

It was in one word, Manichean

“Six days ago, Russia’s Vladimir Putin sought to shake the foundations of the free world thinking he could make it bend to his menacing ways. But he badly miscalculated,” said Biden. “He thought he could roll into Ukraine and the world would roll over. Instead he met a wall of strength he never imagined.”

“In the battle between democracy and autocracy, democracies are rising to the moment, and the world is clearly choosing the side of peace and security.”

Biden is certainly not the first to use the presidential pulpit to frame his foreign policy objectives of the moment as an epic struggle between good and evil. Who could forget the post-9/11 speeches of George W. Bush, calling Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world,” while signaling to leaders across the Muslim world, “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”?

During his second inaugural address — the introduction of his so-called "freedom agenda" — Bush actually declared “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

We know now that while laudable on its face, the mission of ending tyranny somehow hatched many little tyrannies across the Middle East and North Africa — al Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS, to name a few. Today, however, Biden dusted off the hymnal to declare global unity against Vladimir Putin and that the United States is again leading the vanguard against evil, hurtling down the tracks of the liberal international order (no mention of the countries not yet fully on board, like China, India, Israel, Turkey, the Gulf States — most of them partners/friends/allies). 

Nevertheless, according to his remarks Tuesday, Putin is being punished with the full-force of economic sanctions and closed airspace over the EU and the United States. Putin’s cronies and oligarchs “who bilked billions of dollars off this violent regime” can expect a good squeezing, too. Furthermore, Russia stands to face the full ferocity of NATO if it dips even a toe into one of the member states just outside Ukraine. 

“As I have made crystal clear the United States and our Allies will defend every inch of territory of NATO countries with the full force of our collective power,” Biden charged, his voice rising.

“When the history of this era is written Putin’s war on Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger.” 

Biden mentioned “diplomacy” exactly twice but it was apropos of nothing (other to say all efforts at diplomacy were rejected by Putin). No word of how the U.S. (as a leader) may be working to diffuse or deescalate Putin’s aggressive behavior, just a pledge to rush billions in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, portending a long fight, and what then — regime change in Moscow?

Biden was careful to assure that any real fighting right now would be done by the Ukrainian people, and it might even “take months.” But he would be wise to note that regime change policies from the outside typically don’t work; they are beyond messy and tend to have disastrous unintended consequences. Not good if that’s what the crippling sanctions against Russia are ultimately intended for, as my colleague Marcus Stanley pointed out today. 

Of course, a Manichean infusion always provides color and jacks up the emotional factor during critical addresses before the nation; they are designed to make people feel patriotic and good. Tonight, amid the horrifying images coming out of Ukraine, was no different. The test will be what Biden does about it. With a good number of folks within his own party seemingly hunkered down for a long fight, let’s hope that this battle between “good and evil” remains firmly in the realm of oratorical flourishes and ideological touchstones rather than serious U.S. foreign policy. 


U.S. President Joe Biden delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris applaud, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, U.S., March 1. 2022. Jabin Botsford/Pool via REUTERS
Analysis | Europe
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.