In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”, there is a story about an oak tree that was next to the main characters’ estate. A large, powerful oak tree from the outside….. We will return to this interesting episode at the end of this article, but now let’s recall the memoirs of National Security Advisor Scowcroft and President Bush “A world transformed”, where the latter, summarizing his feelings about the collapse of the USSR, noted that on the one hand he dreamed of the collapse of the USSR, and on the other hand he had no idea how it should happen. At the same time, Bush’s fear of an uncontrolled, bloody collapse of the USSR motivated him to support Gorbachev in his reforms and his desire to preserve the USSR.

What kind of strategy could we talk about for the post-Soviet countries? Of course, only an inertial one.

This shows that the US had no strategy for the collapse of the USSR at that time. US foreign policy did not have a strategic vision for the USSR. At the same time, President Bush stated that it was then, in those conditions, and in the future, that only the United States could fulfill the role of world leader. Question comes here: How can there be a world leader without a strategy?

In his memoirs “A Russian Hand”, President Clinton’s advisor Talbot noted that Condoleezza Rice once said that during the 1990s, US foreign policy was nameless. That’s right, because what else can you call a foreign policy that has no strategy?

If the United States had no strategy for the USSR in terms of its collapse, i.e., it was moving inertially, what kind of strategy could we talk about for the post-Soviet countries? Of course, only an inertial one. Therefore, the mistakes made by US leaders, especially Clinton, such as taking away Ukraine’s security tool to deter Russia, nuclear weapons, or NATO’s too long pause on Ukraine’s appearance on the agenda of future membership, are quite natural.

But it is time to assess President Biden’s foreign policy. First, let’s go back to August 2016, three months before the presidential elections, Vice President Biden published an article in Foreign Affairs entitled “Building on Success: Opportunities for the Next Administration. Vice President Biden addressed his message to the US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Foreign policy was the main component of that address. So, what did Vice President Biden advise President Biden in 2016? What advice did he give regarding Russia? How did Vice President Biden incorporate that message addressed by Kissinger in his foreign policy advice in 2016?

Ukraine has been a geopolitical experiment of the world’s great powers since the 90s, bleeding.

In 2015, Kissinger addressed a message related to the US foreign policy and Russia from the point of view of the strategy: “Still, Russia is mounting an offensive on the border on which, paradoxically, it is least inherently threatened…We need to address the immediate challenges Russia poses while also defining a context for its long-term role in the international equilibrium.”

In 2016 Biden responded with the following:

“The same is true with regard to Russia, with which the United States should continue to pursue a policy that combines the urgent need for deterrence, on the one hand, with the prudent pursuit of tactical cooperation and strategic stability, on the other. Russia’s illegal attempt to annex Crimea and its continued aggression in eastern Ukraine violate foundational principles of the post–Cold War order: sovereignty and the inviolability of borders in Europe. In response, we have rallied our allies in Europe and elsewhere to impose real costs on Moscow, making clear that this pressure will continue until Russia upholds its commitments under the agreements reached in Minsk aimed at ending the conflict.”

The US foreign policy was too static or even inert to prevent the Russia invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

As we saw in 2022, Minsk was neither a war prevention nor a tool for ending the conflict that had been going on since 2014. The call to partners in Europe to “impose real costs on Moscow” also did not work. It seems that the US foreign policy was too static or even inert to prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and modus vivendi between Washington and Moscow was far from achieved. Rather, regional security challenges echoed from the early 90s again.

All dusty issues of the 90s, prematurely sent to the US policy archives, needed to be pulled out and finally resolved. Vice President Biden advised to deter Russia but it’s absolutely not clear how this advice relates to Ukraine. It seems that he missed out on resolving the fundamental issues of regional security related to Ukraine, which had echoed from the early 90s:

“…the combination of our $3.4 billion European Reassurance Initiative and NATO’s new forward deployments in Poland and the Baltics will strengthen our European allies and provide a bulwark against further Russian aggression. For years, we’ve also encouraged Europe to spend more on defense and to diversify its energy supplies in order to reduce its susceptibility to coercion. Now we’re starting to see progress on these fronts. And the next administration should redouble the United States’ commitment to strengthening NATO and our partnership with the EU, even as London and Brussels negotiate their ongoing relationship”.

Can there be leadership without strategy?

Now let’s look at a recent article about Biden’s foreign policy in Foreign Affairs magazine. The author seeks to restore Biden’s political reputation by saying that Biden’s foreign policy is US leadership, but without world hegemony. The author says that Biden’s achievement is that he has not resorted to the military tools of geopolitics and has shown the power of diplomacy. This is worth asking: What kind of power of diplomacy are we talking about? The one that leaves two wars in Ukraine and the Middle East after Biden? He even beat Trump here, who left him only one in 2021, the war in Afghanistan. And the main question is this: Can there be leadership without strategy?

What strategy did Biden use for Russia, the war in Ukraine, and security in Europe? The third year of the war in Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, every fourth Ukrainian is considered a refugee. Ukraine has been a geopolitical experiment of the world’s great powers since the 90s, bleeding. Is this evidence of a foreign policy strategy? Is this evidence of powerful diplomacy? History, of course, will make an assessment, but history is not able to bring back to life people who have fallen victim to geopolitical disorder, foreign policy phobias that only fueled aggression, and the lack of a reliable world leader and, as a result, the devaluation of the moral imperative.

And now let’s go back to Ayn Rand’s famous novel “Atlas Shrugged”. There is a story about an oak tree that was next to the main characters’ estate. A big, powerful oak tree from the outside. That’s what everyone around thought. And then thunder struck, lightning hit the oak and split it. Everyone around was surprised, because the oak was the embodiment of strength. But when they looked inside the oak tree, they saw…. dust – the oak tree was rotten. Everyone realized everything. The United States has long needed to make a frank assessment of the state of its “geopolitical oak tree” and treat it, so that people in the world do not become surprised, just as Ayn Rand’s characters said, “for every such oak tree there is a lightning bolt.”

For every such oak tree, there is a lightning bolt.

The United States and the world now need a leader who, first of all, will be able to recognize the mistakes made by the United States after the end of the Cold War and build on this to create a new global security architecture where countries that used to serve as a buffer zone, including Ukraine, finally have a reliable security status. The world and the US need a leadership, wise, responsible and decisive at the same time.