With a raised eyebrow and a serious face, Joe Biden pronounces, on Saturday, the last sentence of his speech on the sidelines of his visit to Warsaw: “We will have a radiant future, based on democracy, hope and light, probity and freedom. For God’s sake, this man can’t stay in power!” Those words shouldn’t have been spoken. At least, this new tirade was not planned in the speech of the American president. A few seconds later, there is panic in the ranks of American diplomacy. “What the president meant was that Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not talking about Putin’s power in Russia, nor about regime change.” , immediately specified a spokesman for the White House.
The next day, French President Emmanuel Macron assured that he “would not use” the terms of his counterpart calling for “the escalation of neither words nor actions”. A distancing also operated by the German Chancellor. Overthrowing Russian power is not “the objective of NATO nor that of the American president”, recalled Olaf Scholz. Do the European positions, against the current of the declarations of the American head of state, illustrate a disunity within the Western ranks? This is not the case for Nicole Bacharan, historian and political scientist specializing in the United States. According to her, everyone is in their role and the statements of Emmanuel Macron or Olaf Scholz do not prove any disagreement.
L’Express: Do you think that the words spoken by Joe Biden at the end of his speech in Warsaw embarrass Europeans to the point of alienating Western positions?
Nicole Bacharan: Today, not at all. In a few weeks, it may be different if the situation on the ground changes. His speech did not weaken the union. Westerners and Europeans talk to each other all the time. At all levels. Ministers, embassies, leaders… It is a circular and continuous exchange. Among them, there is not a country that does not want Vladimir Putin to leave. Everyone wants it.
The fact that Europeans recoil from American statements does not mean that they disapprove of Joe Biden’s remarks. It’s just not the right time to say it. Emmanuel Macron is the one who will have Vladimir Putin at the end of the line in the event of a change in Russia. The fact that the French president or Olaf Scholz regularly have Vladimir Putin on the telephone is seen positively by Washington. There is no gap between Europeans and Americans. It is the game of chancelleries to use the terms that suit them to advance their pawns. France and Germany have chosen the path of negotiation. Joe Biden, who has known Vladimir Putin for twenty years, concluded that the household had been counterproductive. Better to threaten him.
Why did Joe Biden utter this sentence?
NB: This sentence came from a form of disgust after this long visit to Poland and his contacts with the refugees. She was unprepared. Joe Biden’s speech was a great speech about freedom and democracy. There is a particular strength to the presence of the American president on Polish soil in view of the country’s history. By summoning article 5 of the transatlantic treaty, he recalled the principle of the inviolability of NATO territory with the intention of being very discouraging towards Vladimir Putin. Its a threat. Will it deter?
A few months before the midterms in the United States, wasn’t Joe Biden’s sentence more inward-looking and his electorate?
NB: There is not a single speech from a leader who is not oriented towards his own country, that would be absurd. Joe Biden addresses Americans in each of his speeches. It is also for him to defend a position that is not new to him. He arrived at the White House in January 2020 with the principle of defending freedoms and democracy. He presented himself as the defender of institutions against autocrats. He certainly didn’t think this fight would ultimately come down to Russia.
This is in line with his categorical opposition to Donald Trump. He was elected because he was not Donald Trump. His predecessor completely shook up American alliances, he dubbed Vladimir Putin. In this speech, he addresses his allies as much as his internal audience.
Can this speech destroy weeks of diplomatic talks that began the day after the outbreak of war?
NB: There are currently no negotiations. The discussions do not exist to such an extent that the Minister of Defense and the American Chief of Staff are not taken on the telephone by their Russian counterparts. This is unheard of, even at the worst time of the Cold War. Faced with this state of affairs, Joe Biden seeks to establish a balance of power. During the whole period before the war, there were many exchanges but the Russians did not move an inch… Putin does not negotiate. The few attempts with the Ukrainian representatives show it. The United States is aware of this. Biden therefore considers that Putin should no longer lead the country. Which doesn’t mean there’s a plan to overthrow him.
Since 2011, Vladimir Putin has seen the hand of the CIA in all opposition demonstrations in his country. He also thought he guessed American intervention in the protest movements in Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan or Georgia… He therefore reinforced repression. It has further increased in recent months. For him, it is not possible for people to be attracted by the Western model. And if this desire exists, it must not exist. So there are very few ways to reach Vladimir Putin. No maneuver to overthrow it exists for the time being. The possibility of regime change lies in the hands of the Russian civilian population.