Biden's Ukraine speech was aimed at U.S. allies, not voters

A high-profile speech on Ukraine is probably the last thing Democratic pollsters would have wanted from President Joe Biden. Good news on the pandemic would be welcome. If there had to be tough talk about a nasty foe, they would surely have hoped it would be about inflation, not Russian President Vladimir Putin. Or they may have wanted the president out there touting the booming numbers on jobs and economic growth. Anything but a foreign policy problem that few Americans care about.

But there he was on Tuesday afternoon, giving a White House speech about Ukraine and introducing new sanctions on Russia. He emphasized how closely the U.S. and he personally are working with North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, and how these sanctions are only a "first tranche" — enough to severely punish the Russians for what they've already done, but leaving options in reserve if Putin continues on the same course.

What is striking here is the extent to which Biden's public opinion and reputation interests are at cross-purposes. For one thing, sanctions will certainly put pressure on world oil prices and therefore the U.S. economy. So it's hardly what Biden might want in terms of policies that could rescue his approval ratings and save Democrats in the coming midterms.

But presidents can't just ignore foreign policy. And in this situation, Biden has chosen to play up the issue, repeatedly bringing it up and giving White House statements on it. That's unlikely to help his popularity. But he presumably thinks it is best for the nation's interest to do so — and that it is best for his own reputation to demonstrate mastery of foreign affairs.

It's early yet, but so far that seems to be working: Some of the same folks who gave Biden poor marks for the U.S. actions in Afghanistan over the summer seem to be much happier with how he's handling this situation. Not just the pundits and outside experts: Six months ago there were reports that Biden wasn't sufficiently consulting with allies, but now there are few, if any, whispers of that.

Biden's speech on Tuesday wasn't his most eloquent or his best delivered, but I suspect it got the job done if the goals included keeping NATO on the same anti-Russia page. The policies he announced are likely to fall in the range most people who care about foreign policy will support — tough enough, but not too bellicose, and preserving some serious options for the next round.

Biden has already had some Republican support. I didn't hear anything on Tuesday afternoon that would change that, although partisanship is pushing Republicans toward concluding that the president either hasn't done nearly enough or has done way too much.

But as much as Biden probably doesn't want to be talking about a foreign problem, Republicans don't have much room to maneuver, either. Neither a pro-Putin stance nor an actual call for U.S. troop involvement is likely to be popular, so other than nitpicking Biden on the timing or specifics, there's not as much room for easy attacks as they might like. (Of course, timing and specifics may be important. But they don't make for great sound bites.)

To put that last point another way: Presidents aren't the only politicians who are driven by and constrained by events, regardless of what they might want to spend their time on. Indeed, presidents have a somewhat better chance of driving events, rather than the other way around. But only if they are skilled at maximizing their influence.

Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.