Reporter: Deterrence Didn’t Work. Biden: Do You Know What You’re Talking About

Eena Ruffini of CBS News tried a gotcha on President Joe Biden in his press conference at NATO. “Deterrence didn’t work,” she declared. This is an alternative formulation for “Putin attacked Ukraine for no reason recognized in international law.” The advantage for a reporter is that it puts responsibility on Biden and the United States. Biden was not put on the back foot, however. He has been studying the political side of nuclear weapons since before Ruffini was born.

Ruffini’s question was the last, and Biden had noted he was running out of time. His answer was necessarily short and missed a lot. Richard Nephew expanded on the sanctions side of Biden’s answer. I’ll expand on deterrence.

“Deterrence” is a word that is almost always used badly, including by the military. It’s a difficult word. It means to convince another not to attack by preparations for that attack. It refers to the mental state of one party, influenced by the actions of another. Its meaning has slid from that interaction to the influencing actions by themselves When a reporter says “Deterrence didn’t work,” she is talking about something intended to deter. She probably could not say what specific measures those are.

The “failure of deterrence” frame was used frequently by the Trump administration. When Iranian-related forces attacked a military base in Iraq, it was a “failure of deterrence.” Once again, specifics on what failed were lacking, or a consideration of why an attack took place at a particular time, rather than earlier. Did deterrence fail an hour before the attack? Three days? How would one know? In a different context, the guy carrying six guns and draped with ammo belts to buy a latte probably thinks he is deterring attacks, but has he considered that his fellow customers have no interest in attacking him?

“Deterrence” is treated as a thing in itself. a wall constructed against attack. Details don’t matter.

Perhaps Ruffini is talking about the US nuclear “deterrent,” in which the word concretely refers to the US nuclear arsenal, or perhaps the US military more generally. It has long been known that a nuclear arsenal does not stop wars below the nuclear threshold, particularly if one state has nuclear weapons and the other does not. Alliances are part of deterrence too. Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and the United States is not obliged to come to its defense as a part of a treaty. That part of deterrence is absent in this case.

Biden pointed out to her that sanctions are not intended to deter, but rather inflict pain on Russia to make them consider stopping the war. This is a classic understanding of war: the infliction of pain to change another nation’s behavior.

Biden is sending arms to Ukraine, as have many other countries. He is also directing an information campaign against Russia that is different from anything we’ve seen before. And there are, yes, the sanctions. Reporters are having a difficult time grasping that an operation that does not rely on bombs and tanks can make a difference.

Another mistake Ruffini makes is that her accusation lays all the agency on the United States. Putin massed his army. He issued non-negotiable demands. Then he attacked. That’s agency. The United States is not fully in control of events around the world, but that idea seems to be a staple of media narratives.

Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner