No wonder Putin demanded another meeting with the United States—without NATO and Ukraine—to address his insistence on “security guarantees” that would include NATO forces and assets retreating from Eastern and Central Europe. Although meetings between Russia, NATO, and the OSCE were also arranged, the United States obliged Putin with more exclusive meetings. America’s “commitment” to Ukrainian security and statements that the United States and NATO would impose “severe consequences” if Russia undertook a major military offensive were not enough to offset the enabling gestures and lack of credible deterrence. As Andrew Michta observed, “Significantly for Putin’s designs, the scheduled talks … went on as planned, notwithstanding the Russian military forces having been sent to Kazakhstan.” Indeed, Russia sent tanks, paratroopers, and special operations units to take charge of the Kazakhstan government’s violent crackdown and bring Kazakhstan further into Russia’s orbit.

As American and Russian diplomatic teams began talks on January 10, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken tellingly said, “We’re going to listen to Russia’s concerns” regarding NATO military exercises in Central and Eastern Europe, but “they’re going to have to listen to ours” regarding the troops amassed at Ukraine’s border. Such an equation would, of course, reward Russia for threatening war, and at the least should not have been offered before negotiations even began. Similarly, with U.S. officials now “keeping an eye on” whether Russia would send nuclear weapons to the Ukrainian border, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman offered to meet Russia again “to discuss missile placement and a possible revival of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.” She additionally signaled the United States’ “openness” to “reciprocal limits on the size and scope of NATO and Russian military exercises.”

Clearly, the American and Russian talks, as well as the Biden administration’s discussion of Russia’s unilateral demands, legitimized and emboldened Putin. They resulted in more incremental concessions by the United States that were unreciprocated by Russia. As so often in recent years, the “diplomatic process” provided Russia with time and cover for further aggression.

As negotiations were ongoing, Russia staged a massive cyberattack on Ukraine, increased its use of energy as a weapon by undersupplying European countries, positioned sabotage operatives in Ukraine, sent “extraordinarily high amounts of military rail traffic” toward Ukraine, threatened to deploy the Russian military to Cuba and Venezuela, and sent troops to Belarus for joint military drills. In spite of all this, Secretary Blinken met again with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on January 21 and agreed to send written answers “to all of Russia’s security demands.” He told Lavrov there would be a “united, swift and severe” response if Russia further invaded Ukraine.

With the threat of Russian war becoming more dire by the day, the Biden administration finally seems to be taking deterrence more seriously. Headlines now highlight that Biden is finally beginning to send $200 million in military aid to Ukraine and is finally “permitting” the Baltic nations to send Ukraine U.S.-made anti-tank weapons and air-defense systems. What is incredible, though, is the Biden administration’s withholding of critical military aid until now. Ukraine and its neighbors needed that defensive weaponry and show of military support much earlier. With imperial designs on Taiwan, China is watching to see whether it is too late for the West to save Ukraine from Russia. China would, of course, benefit from the United States being forced to refocus on Europe.

Secretary Blinken finally deviated from his emphasis on “diplomatic offramps” with a January 20 speech that said what needed to be said: “To allow Russia to violate those [post-Cold War] principles with impunity would drag us all back to a much more dangerous and unstable time, when this continent and this city were divided in two, separated by no man’s lands, patrolled by soldiers, with the threat of all-out war hanging over everyone’s heads. It would also send a message to others around the world that these principles are expendable, and that, too, would have catastrophic results.”

If only the United States and its Western allies had emphasized and stood up for these principles when Putin started testing the waters to see if there was an opportunity to devour Ukraine, divide and destabilize NATO, and deliver the very idea of democracy a crippling blow.

We’ve of late forgotten both how to play the game and the reason why the stakes are so high. Deterring Russia is about defending the NATO security architecture, freedom, and human rights from war and repression. Tragically, the administration has placed 8,500 U.S. troops on “high alert” and is weighing deploying them to Eastern Europe and the Baltics. It is reasonable to suggest that if the West and the United States had taken a strong moral and strategic stand, our brave soldiers would not now be facing the possible prospect of war on the European continent.

Anne R. Pierce, Ph.D. is the author of A Perilous Path: The Misguided Foreign Policy of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry and other works. For information about the author and her books and articles, see www.Annerpierce.com and @AnneRPierce on Twitter.

Image: Reuters.