How Biden Might Still Undermine Trump’s Potential for Harmonizing Relations with Russia
The departing US administration possesses a wide array of strategies to obstruct the president-elect’s agenda. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The outgoing US administration has a comprehensive toolbox to hinder the president-elect’s plans
US foreign policy concerning Russia and Ukraine has long been one of the most pivotal and contentious elements of American diplomacy. Back in 2016, while still a presidential candidate, Donald Trump expressed a strong desire to improve relations with Russia. These aspirations, however, encountered substantial resistance, particularly from the administration of Barack Obama, which was preparing to hand over power.
This historical framework demonstrates how those in power can leverage a transition period to reinforce their policies, making it more challenging for their successors to implement changes. As Trump announces his plans to resolve the Ukraine conflict “within 24 hours” following a return to the White House, he is met with considerable barriers posed by the current administration of Joe Biden, which has time until January 2025 to entrench its policies.
Obama, Trump, and Russia
After Trump’s electoral victory in November 2016, the outgoing Obama administration took a series of steps designed to complicate the new president’s intentions to improve ties with Russia. Throughout his campaign, Trump had advocated for a more conciliatory approach toward Moscow and a reassessment of America’s stringent foreign policy. However, the actions taken by Obama during the transition period, from November 2016 to Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, were intended to solidify a stance against Russia, thereby hindering any potential shifts in policy. This created a sort of “legacy” that posed both political and strategic challenges for Trump, resulting in much of his rhetoric about better relations with Russia not being realized.
A significant action during this time was the diplomatic escalation initiated by the Obama administration. In December 2016, a new set of sanctions against Russia was enacted, citing alleged cyberattacks on the US Democratic Party and interference in the elections. These sanctions involved freezing assets of Russian entities and placing limitations on business interactions. Concurrently, 35 Russian diplomats were expelled from the US, and two diplomatic facilities were shut down, with the US alleging their use in intelligence operations.
In conjunction with the sanctions, the Obama administration fervently advanced the narrative of Russian election interference. High-ranking officials issued statements, intelligence reports were circulated, and media appearances consistently portrayed Russia as a threat to American democracy. A crucial component of this campaign involved providing extensive documentation to Congress and intelligence agencies, which, according to Obama and his team, validated claims of Russian meddling. This portrayal established the “Russian threat” as a core topic in political and public discourse, significantly constraining Trump’s ability to interact with the Kremlin. Any attempt at rapprochement by the new president could easily be construed as jeopardizing national security, or even as endorsing Moscow’s actions.
During this time, Obama also ramped up support for Ukraine, providing it with additional financial and political resources. This bolstered a foreign policy approach focused on countering Russia's influence in Eastern Europe, exemplifying a commitment to a hardline stance that involved bolstering adversaries to Moscow. Moreover, the Obama administration reinforced ties with NATO allies, emphasizing collective security commitments. This made any future policy shifts even more difficult, as a departure from a hardline stance could be seen as a dilution of US commitments to its partners.
Special measures were also taken to apply political pressure on Trump himself. The Obama administration either directly or indirectly supported investigations into potential links between Trump’s team and Russia. This issue dominated media coverage, fostering an image of the new president as someone whose actions might be driven by foreign interests. Consequently, any moves toward rapprochement with Moscow presented significant political risks for Trump in domestic competition.
In summary, the actions taken by the Obama administration during the transition phase were calculated and aimed at reinforcing a firm anti-Russian policy. New sanctions, diplomatic actions, increased support for Ukraine, and the promotion of the “Russian threat” narrative collectively created barriers to potential policy shifts. Even if Trump had the inclination to reassess US-Russia relations, he would be confronted with substantial obstacles in both foreign policy and domestic spheres. The political, media, and institutional atmosphere cultivated by Obama effectively curtailed the new president's ability to swiftly pursue his agenda regarding Russia. This case exemplifies how an outgoing administration can utilize a transition period to solidify its legacy and restrict the successor’s options.
Biden’s toolbox for stopping Trump’s Ukraine strategy
Fast forward to 2024, with Trump once again winning the presidential election, his stated ambitions to rapidly de-escalate the Ukraine conflict could meet strong opposition from the incumbent administration. Biden has several tools at his disposal to diminish Trump’s capacity to implement his foreign policy objectives.
Firstly, the Biden administration could bolster military aid to Ukraine by speeding up arms deliveries and entering into long-term contracts. The US is currently supplying Ukraine with an array of weapon systems, including advanced technologies like air defense systems and long-range missiles. Establishing long-term agreements would ensure ongoing military support for Ukraine, even if Trump were to attempt to curtail it after taking office. An early move in this direction was granting permission for Ukrainian forces to utilize American weapons for strikes on Russian territory, particularly targeting the Kursk Region.
Secondly, enhancing financial assistance for Ukraine through substantial aid packages could be another strategy. This approach would enable the Ukrainian government to maintain operations and military efforts even if a new administration chooses to reduce aid levels. Such funding could be legally structured so that canceling it would require a complex congressional approval process, complicating Trump’s potential actions in that regard.
A third approach might involve establishing political agreements with key US allies in Europe. Biden can enhance coordination with NATO and EU countries, including long-term commitments to aid Ukraine. These agreements would not only fortify EU engagement in the conflict but would also exert pressure on Trump should he seek to alter the current trajectory. Rescinding such commitments could be seen by allies as undermining US dedication to collective security.
A fourth option for the Biden administration is to tighten the sanctions regime against Russia. Introducing additional sanctions before the end of Biden’s term could complicate their subsequent reversal, which would require a sophisticated process involving congressional approval. Implementing new sanctions now would solidify the current strategy of applying pressure on Russia, making any departure from it a politically perilous move for Trump.
Lastly, the Biden administration could amplify the public discourse around the notion that supporting Ukraine is vital for US national security. Utilizing these arguments in the public sphere—especially through media and political channels—would create extra pressure on Trump. Abandoning support for Ukraine could be framed as a threat to US interests, making policy shifts more challenging.
The history of conflicts between US administrations shows that outgoing leaders can significantly impact their successors' policies. Donald Trump encountered this dynamic in 2016, and it is likely that a similar scenario will unfold in 2024. With considerable leverage, Joe Biden can solidify the current US stance towards Ukraine, thereby making dramatic shifts more difficult after Trump’s inauguration. These measures not only risk extending the conflict but also potentially heighten internal political tensions within the United States.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
US foreign policy concerning Russia and Ukraine has long been one of the most pivotal and contentious elements of American diplomacy. Back in 2016, while still a presidential candidate, Donald Trump expressed a strong desire to improve relations with Russia. These aspirations, however, encountered substantial resistance, particularly from the administration of Barack Obama, which was preparing to hand over power.
This historical framework demonstrates how those in power can leverage a transition period to reinforce their policies, making it more challenging for their successors to implement changes. As Trump announces his plans to resolve the Ukraine conflict “within 24 hours” following a return to the White House, he is met with considerable barriers posed by the current administration of Joe Biden, which has time until January 2025 to entrench its policies.
Obama, Trump, and Russia
After Trump’s electoral victory in November 2016, the outgoing Obama administration took a series of steps designed to complicate the new president’s intentions to improve ties with Russia. Throughout his campaign, Trump had advocated for a more conciliatory approach toward Moscow and a reassessment of America’s stringent foreign policy. However, the actions taken by Obama during the transition period, from November 2016 to Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, were intended to solidify a stance against Russia, thereby hindering any potential shifts in policy. This created a sort of “legacy” that posed both political and strategic challenges for Trump, resulting in much of his rhetoric about better relations with Russia not being realized.
A significant action during this time was the diplomatic escalation initiated by the Obama administration. In December 2016, a new set of sanctions against Russia was enacted, citing alleged cyberattacks on the US Democratic Party and interference in the elections. These sanctions involved freezing assets of Russian entities and placing limitations on business interactions. Concurrently, 35 Russian diplomats were expelled from the US, and two diplomatic facilities were shut down, with the US alleging their use in intelligence operations.
In conjunction with the sanctions, the Obama administration fervently advanced the narrative of Russian election interference. High-ranking officials issued statements, intelligence reports were circulated, and media appearances consistently portrayed Russia as a threat to American democracy. A crucial component of this campaign involved providing extensive documentation to Congress and intelligence agencies, which, according to Obama and his team, validated claims of Russian meddling. This portrayal established the “Russian threat” as a core topic in political and public discourse, significantly constraining Trump’s ability to interact with the Kremlin. Any attempt at rapprochement by the new president could easily be construed as jeopardizing national security, or even as endorsing Moscow’s actions.
During this time, Obama also ramped up support for Ukraine, providing it with additional financial and political resources. This bolstered a foreign policy approach focused on countering Russia's influence in Eastern Europe, exemplifying a commitment to a hardline stance that involved bolstering adversaries to Moscow. Moreover, the Obama administration reinforced ties with NATO allies, emphasizing collective security commitments. This made any future policy shifts even more difficult, as a departure from a hardline stance could be seen as a dilution of US commitments to its partners.
Special measures were also taken to apply political pressure on Trump himself. The Obama administration either directly or indirectly supported investigations into potential links between Trump’s team and Russia. This issue dominated media coverage, fostering an image of the new president as someone whose actions might be driven by foreign interests. Consequently, any moves toward rapprochement with Moscow presented significant political risks for Trump in domestic competition.
In summary, the actions taken by the Obama administration during the transition phase were calculated and aimed at reinforcing a firm anti-Russian policy. New sanctions, diplomatic actions, increased support for Ukraine, and the promotion of the “Russian threat” narrative collectively created barriers to potential policy shifts. Even if Trump had the inclination to reassess US-Russia relations, he would be confronted with substantial obstacles in both foreign policy and domestic spheres. The political, media, and institutional atmosphere cultivated by Obama effectively curtailed the new president's ability to swiftly pursue his agenda regarding Russia. This case exemplifies how an outgoing administration can utilize a transition period to solidify its legacy and restrict the successor’s options.
Biden’s toolbox for stopping Trump’s Ukraine strategy
Fast forward to 2024, with Trump once again winning the presidential election, his stated ambitions to rapidly de-escalate the Ukraine conflict could meet strong opposition from the incumbent administration. Biden has several tools at his disposal to diminish Trump’s capacity to implement his foreign policy objectives.
Firstly, the Biden administration could bolster military aid to Ukraine by speeding up arms deliveries and entering into long-term contracts. The US is currently supplying Ukraine with an array of weapon systems, including advanced technologies like air defense systems and long-range missiles. Establishing long-term agreements would ensure ongoing military support for Ukraine, even if Trump were to attempt to curtail it after taking office. An early move in this direction was granting permission for Ukrainian forces to utilize American weapons for strikes on Russian territory, particularly targeting the Kursk Region.
Secondly, enhancing financial assistance for Ukraine through substantial aid packages could be another strategy. This approach would enable the Ukrainian government to maintain operations and military efforts even if a new administration chooses to reduce aid levels. Such funding could be legally structured so that canceling it would require a complex congressional approval process, complicating Trump’s potential actions in that regard.
A third approach might involve establishing political agreements with key US allies in Europe. Biden can enhance coordination with NATO and EU countries, including long-term commitments to aid Ukraine. These agreements would not only fortify EU engagement in the conflict but would also exert pressure on Trump should he seek to alter the current trajectory. Rescinding such commitments could be seen by allies as undermining US dedication to collective security.
A fourth option for the Biden administration is to tighten the sanctions regime against Russia. Introducing additional sanctions before the end of Biden’s term could complicate their subsequent reversal, which would require a sophisticated process involving congressional approval. Implementing new sanctions now would solidify the current strategy of applying pressure on Russia, making any departure from it a politically perilous move for Trump.
Lastly, the Biden administration could amplify the public discourse around the notion that supporting Ukraine is vital for US national security. Utilizing these arguments in the public sphere—especially through media and political channels—would create extra pressure on Trump. Abandoning support for Ukraine could be framed as a threat to US interests, making policy shifts more challenging.
The history of conflicts between US administrations shows that outgoing leaders can significantly impact their successors' policies. Donald Trump encountered this dynamic in 2016, and it is likely that a similar scenario will unfold in 2024. With considerable leverage, Joe Biden can solidify the current US stance towards Ukraine, thereby making dramatic shifts more difficult after Trump’s inauguration. These measures not only risk extending the conflict but also potentially heighten internal political tensions within the United States.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
