Biden has sharp response to reporter: 'You're playing a game with me'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

President Biden on Thursday had a sharp response to a reporter who asked why he though the latest sanctions would change Russian President Vladimir Putin's behavior after previous steps did not stop Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

"Let's get something straight ... I did not say that in fact the sanctions would deter him," Biden said at a press conference from Brussels, where he is meeting with NATO leaders.

"Sanctions never deter - you keep talking about that - sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions, the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain and the demonstration, why I asked for this NATO meeting today, is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we're doing not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year, that's what will stop him," the president said, raising his voice.

Asked if he believes NATO's latest actions on Thursday will lead Russia to change course, Biden said, "That's not what I said. You're playing a game with me." "The answer's no," he added.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-sharp-response-reporter-youre-182916191.html

[Walleye]

1. Sometimes the reporters seem to make up questions to fit the story they want to write

Especially the Washington press corps

[gratuitous]

2. The yahoo article is a re-post from The Hill

And in clicking through to the article, I note that The Hill was very careful not to reveal the identity of the reporter.

Hmmmm.

[COL Mustard]

23. Doocy?

I'd love to know who it was.

[ChazII]

27. No, not Doocy but I think

the reporter was a woman.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. But wait, so what's the point of sanctions then?

[rgbecker]

4. I googled it for you....

[link:https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what%27s+the+point+of+sanctions+against+russia|

[erronis]

12. I remember this being discussed on NPR a few days ago. They are long-term pain rather than

an immediate punch.

From what I remember (and can't remember the program (OnPoint, A1A) except it was very clear), you try the threat of sanctions hoping that a rational leader will rethink his/her actions, barring that you impose them for as long as necessary and always hold additional sanctions available for further coercion.

The goal is to slowly deescalate the situation rather than giving the offending party no means of retreat.

My hopes are that most of them stay in place until the oligarchs return their stolen wealth back to their country, who will direly need it. After Putin and his apparatus is safely neutralized.

[progressoid]

14. oligarchs will never return their stolen wealth

They'll fight it to the end

[Samrob]

44. But they may not be able to use their stolen wealth or enjoy it anymore. nt

[mathematic]

16. The point of sanctions is to make it impossible for Russia to continue

The distinction being deterrence implies there's still a choice. Personally, I think sanctions work as deterrence too but, obviously, these sanctions were put in place after the invasion so their purpose was not deterrence. These sanctions were put in place to make Russia's war against Ukraine impossible to wage in the long term.

[gerryatwork]

42. Exactly

The equipment has to be replaced and not only will Russia not have the money but a lot of the equipment needs smart chips especially the missiles and Russia will no longer have access to them. Money or not.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Spot On!

The threat of sanctions could be a deterrent. But, a sanction in response to an action already taken cannot possibly deter!
Any deterrence extends to any other expansionist dictator, if the damage to Russia becomes as prediction d by most experts.
But, at this point the sanctions on Russia are consequences. And, I hope it has the consequences that hurt that inner circle.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. From what I've read sanctions also may make him

So unpopular he might be ousted.

All long term as we watch in horror

[DFW]

50. It's a very big goal that no one can state out loud

It’s a strong statement to the power—military and economic—inside Russia: “we are not going to attack or dislodge your leadership, but if they remain in place, and their goals and tactics don’t change, then neither do our actions. If Russia gets a new leadership, and that new leadership signals a clean break from Putin’s gang, that would be an immediate game changer. However, that is an internal Russian matter. It was never something that will be done by an outside power. Dictators who have committed mass murder never leave of their own free will. No one has any illusions about how difficult it will be to remove Putin. Only Russians will do that, if ever, and that is you.”

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. True.. and from what I've read, there is no one viable to

take his place at this time. If Putin runs again, dissatisfied people will just not vote. Navalny in a gulag somewhere?

[DFW]

57. Any Russian presidential "election" held from here on in will have one result only

Namely, the one Putin wants. If he wants to retire gracefully, all he has to do is engineer a "surprise upset" and he retires to his luxury properties around the world. He gets them all back by completely withdrawing from all occupied Ukrainian territory, and opening negotiations on helping to rebuild Ukrainian cities. The negotiations will go nowhere, but he has to make the gesture, or he spends his retirement in a sleeping bag in the St. Petersburg home for aging former dictators.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. Or in Switzerland with his common law wife and illegitimate kids

[DFW]

64. The Swiss have been far less welcoming of people like that recently

Fifty years ago they didn’t care, but if I remember correctly, even Imelda Marcos wasn’t welcomed with open arms. Of course, Switzerland is a small country, and might have had to annex a small part of Italy to accommodate her shoes.

I’m sure low key rich bad guys that don’t generate headlines can still fly in and out on their private unmarked jets. However, it has been decades since Putin has been low key. Worse for him, many of his lesser known buddies already reside in high-powered real estate on the lakes of Geneva, Lugano and Zürich. The last thing they want is someone like Putin as their neighbor, and all the finger-pointing he would bring. He’d be safer in North Korea or on Kish.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. Thanks for your interesting input as always DFW!!

I didn't look through all the articles to see if anyone knows exactly where she is in Switzerland. But evidently a couple days ago there were stories about petitions to the Swiss government to get her out. Then I saw that the Swiss government said they don't think she's there.

My husband and I went to lugano and it is beautiful there. If he flies in and out it really makes me mad to think he's luxuriating there

I signed up to get notices whenever whenever a private plane leaves Russia and lands somewhere. But it turns out it didn't mean anything to me because it would just be like a plane number x landed at x airport. Guess no one knows who the plane belongs to?

The campaign to expel Alina Kabaeva, a former Olympic gymnast and politician, was started by Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian nationals after Mr Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

[DFW]

69. All those planes ARE registered

However, finding out the true owners is probably impossible if they don't want their identities known. There will be shill owners going back ten layers of bureaucratic concealment designed to make sure no one has an easy time of tracing the true ownership. The name on the credit card for refueling is probably either Stenka Razin or Elmer Fudd.

Lugano is indeed spectacular. I haven't flown in or out of there in decades. I always take the train. The airport is down in Agno, and the few times I was in such a hurry that it really made a difference, I flew in and out with propellor planes of Swissair. The terrain doesn't permit long runways down there, and while a small jet might be able to land, one with the range to reach Russia would most likely need a longer runway than the one they have. Maybe they have lengthened it in the meantime, I wouldn't know.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Punishment vs deterrence

It sounds like they are saying that the more Putin keeps this up, the more they are going to punish, but that these were never meant to be 'deterrent' on their own?

Which kinda makes sense since they couldn't sanction him before he started the invasion as the international political will wasn't there, so deterrence really never had a chance.

[L. Coyote]

37. So, you're just playing a game with us now, right?

[Sympthsical]

5. Except the reporter had a valid question

I'm not sure why the President responded the way he did. He's wrong. His administration has asserted countless times that sanctions are meant to act as a deterrent. That was many people's understanding of the sanctions - deterrence and punishment, an incentive to cease his behavior.

So his response is completely baffling.

I have no idea why this is even posted as some kind of win for the President. He was not even slightly correct in his answer to the reporter's question.

Here's one example of many, where Secretary of State Blinken says precisely that:

"When it comes to sanctions, we have built, with European partners and allies, a massive package of sanctions. The G7 countries in Munich came together, reiterated that there would be massive consequences for Russia if it pursues this aggression.

The purpose of the sanctions in the first instance is to try to deter Russia from going to war. As soon as you trigger them, that deterrent is gone. And until the last minute, as long as we can try to bring a deterrent effect to this, we're going to try to do that."

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2022-02-20/segment/01

[demmiblue]

7. Nope, there is nothing wrong with this post. n/t

[Demsrule86]

8. No, it is a 'gotcha' question...Biden said even as he imposed sanctions that intelligence

indicated Putin would still invade...and really if you look closely what was implied is why bother with sanctions as they are not a deterrent...they were meant to be a punishment and wound Russian so he would not try to invade somewhere else.

[Sympthsical]

9. "Gotcha question"

From the French: Questions I dislike.

[Kingofalldems]

26. So Doocy doesn't ask 'gotcha' questions?

[Gore1FL]

38. Gotcha questions are phrased in a no-win context.

The asker is not looking for an actual answer, but to score points.

[rgbecker]

10. Thanks for posting this: you should read it.

"As soon as you trigger them, that deterrent is gone. " Blinken, not Biden (by the way), clearly states the sanctions are not a deterrent but rather the threat of the sanctions is the deterrent. Naturally, after the sanctions are imposed, Putin is fucked and his best move is just to continue killing the Ukrainian Children.

Do you have other statements from his administration we could review? I clearly remember Biden fighting off the press' and Zelenski's push to impose the sanctions even before Putin started his attack. Biden argued imposing the sanctions before Putin attacked would remove the deterrent effect.

The sanctions are to punish Putin for his actions with hope of getting him to rethink is dreams of reuniting the USSR and bringing the eastern block countries out of NATO back to Russia's influence. In the long run they will isolate Russia and may lead to the Russians, with knowledge now of a western way of life, demanding a change in leadership.

[Sympthsical]

13. Why the effort at this hair-splitting?

Sometimes people we like say erroneous things.

Hyper-partisanship is such a complete waste of effort.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. +1

[erronis]

33. I also (usually) say erroneous things. But clarification is always welcome.

Apparently the threat of sanctions is supposed to make the malefactor reconsider before doing the malfeasance.

Sometimes that works early on (no dessert if you don't eat your broccoli) and sometimes it is ineffective. Then there needs to be another layer of threats (and possibly rewards) until the appropriate behavior is achieved.

Putin acting like a tyrannical 2 year old that has been given the keys to a kingdom does not seem to follow normal civilized world strictures. I've had children that would get into such a high dudgeon that no amount of rational reasoning will bring them back into reality - except pure exhaustion.

[c-rational]

34. And sometimes people we like do not say erroneous things but are called out for doing so, and

sometimes that is done for a reason other than good. I could agree with hyper-partisanship being a complete waste of effort, but I have not generally seen this from the Democrats, rather it is typical of reThuglican behavior.

[C Moon]

51. Hair splitting? The reporter is splitting hairs. You're splitting hairs further.

It was a meaningless question only meant to make President Biden look bad. Obviously a GOPutin backed question.

[LymphocyteLover]

11. Agree it's confusing but I think there's some diplomatic speak going on

You can see the contradiction in what Blinken said-- there's some balance between it being a deterrent and a punishment.

I think they mean the threat of sanctions *can be* a deterrent but once you put the sanctions in place it may not prevent the action, like Russia attacking. That's why they didn't put severe sanctions on Russia before they invaded. The sanctions were a punishment but it didn't deter Russia.

Also, Biden may be talking very specifically about what the deterrent refers to in this case.

[Sympthsical]

15. English is English

Deterrent isn't a sophisticated word with a plethora of subtle meanings within this context. "If you do this, we will respond with this. If you continue to do so afterward, we will continue to respond in this and additional ways. So, think twice." It's a well-known, well-worn diplomatic tool.

It's ok for the President to be incorrect sometimes. We will not all plummet into the abyss.

These reactions are so weird.

[c-rational]

21. I am baffled at your bafflement. President Biden never said sanctions are meant as a deterrent. It

is the threat of sanctions which are a deterrent, and then if they cross that line, sanctions are imposed to suck the oxygen out of your opponent over time.

[Kingofalldems]

25. There you go.

Correct.

[Tickle]

28. glad I'm not alone nt

[vanlassie]

6. Seems clear to me that Biden is answering the face value question.

“Why would these work when the last ones didn’t?” His answer is that there is a broader and more long term effect to be considered rather than an immediate reaction, which by the way knowing Putin is no surprise.

[sanatanadharma]

17. To achieve wisdom, see sanctions as analogous to ...

... resistors in an electrical system, cholesterol in the veins, an air-tight coffin with dwindling oxygen.

Sanctions won't stop the attack but can strangle the life out of the attacker.
The nations people suffer until they no longer suffer the fool at the top.

[erronis]

35. Good analogies. Unfortunate for the common people of Ukraine, Russia, world.

[harumph]

18. These questions are boring.

Whether or not sanctions have a deterrent effect depends on the action you are trying to deter.
In this case, it is increasing the financial consequences for Russians to stay in Ukraine and put political pressure on
Putin to withdraw. Putin is insulated from the direct consequences of sanctions - but his staff may not be - at least they
may not be if the resistance continues and the sanctions are maintained. Therein
lies the pressure. This isn't that difficult to understand.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. If the decision was made to never go into the Ukraine

to provide boots on the ground, then I am certain President Biden must be feeling horrible as we all watch the carnage. For whatever sound & prudent reasons this decision was made prior to the invasion. I'd get testy too.

Because the President knows that it is just a matter of time before the general public reaches a critical mass conclusion that we didn't do enough to prevent the carnage. This is not a hawkish or right wing conclusion to me because I am the polar opposite. It is a human being response to murder that can only grow.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. I'm just hoping there was rock solid intelligence

that there would be a devastating nuclear disaster if anyone in the free world got involved.

Heard Bill Clinton this am tho... Saying it was vitally important that Ukraine demonstrated to the world that Ukraine resisted on their own. Never heard anyone say that before

[liberalmediaaddict]

20. Biden is allowed to lose his cool occasionally

With the pressure he's been under the past 14 months. The beltway press has attacked him and Jen Psaku since day one for Democrats not immediately fixing every single problem in America and internationally. All the while acting like the devastation of the Trump years never happened and treating Republicans like a normal opposition party.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. To me he should have said it was all he was going to

concentrate on. Undoing trump stench and truly concentrating on covid. Make the public realize how monumental that task was.

[erronis]

39. Yup. Still disinfecting the White House while the Capitol is still being cleansed from the (r) pigs.

I know that Biden doesn't want to mention the former thing that lived in 1600 Penn., but every now and then calling out the mess that tfg left (on purpose) and the still active treasonous bastards in congress might be useful. But then that's what we're for - help fight them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Yes! I think it would help if he got on TV every week and talked about it

And I mean specifically.

Here's an example, trump overturned an Obama regulation that stopped coal companies from dumping sludge into our water. The sludge contained proven cancer causing material. Explaining this to people and saying you are going to get the regulation back in would be very effective in my mind. You know - find less partisan stuff that would be difficult to explain/rationalize. Stuff trump did under the table.

[ancianita]

32. +1

[Cha]

36. KR.. TY& PJB!

💙💛

[Kingofalldems]

40. Kick and rec for Trump's slithering secret pals.

[erronis]

45. Hi, YoshidaYui. I'm not sure why this particular twitter feed comes up so often.

I don't tend to click through on random stuff like that and it almost seems gratuitous.

However I've enjoyed many of your postings over the past couple of years. Maybe I just don't understand...

[erronis]

47. Now I understand. That's actually pretty cute altho it does require a twitter link, etc.....

[erronis]

59. No, you're an exceptional poster. As I tried to say before, I really appreciate your

posts. Please keep on keeping on!!!

[YoshidaYui]

60. You are not the only one

I have heard from.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

66. As an avid lover of TBB, awesome Tweet.

I know Tweets ain't for everyone (as evidenced to your first replier), myself included, but I just wanted you to know that your response/tweet was appreciated and gave a jolly chuckle, at least from me.

Love Wrecker, can't wait to see more out of Hunter.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

71. IMO, "Keep up or be left behind."

Twitter, Tiktok, to a lesser extent Youtube, they're all the "Modern" form of social communication. Those that can't keep up just get left behind, as dust in the annals of forgotten and meaningless history. Keep doing you, Yui.

[gulliver]

48. He did great. The reporter was very obviously playing dirty pool.

The reporter was given the last question, and she played games in a smart-ass way with Biden. She actually made a statement followed by a question: "Deterrence didn't work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today?"

The question is quite obviously an enthymeme, and the statement before it fallaciously buttresses the enthymeme. The unstated premise is Biden supposedly thinks the new NATO sanctions will cause Putin to alter course. The question assumes that Biden thinks that. It's not asking whether he thinks it. The question is asserting he does by asking "what makes him think" that.

It couldn't be more obvious that the reporter deserved every bit of what Biden handed her and more. He called her out exactly for playing a game, and that's exactly what she did. Knowingly or not, the question was dirty pool to the core.

[aggiesal]

49. Unfortunately, last nights 11th Hour on MSNBC, ...

show 3 members of his administration saying that they were trying to deter Putin, when they applied the first round of sanctions.

It's hard to see Biden say that sanctions do not deter, while 3 members of his administration are saying the opposite.

I don't think it made for good optics.

[gulliver]

52. It's possible you're misinterpreting what Biden and "3 members of his administration are saying"

There's a big difference between saying they were "trying to deter Putin" and saying that the sanctions would deter him or that sanctions have ever deterred any aggressor. It's a huge difference.

And yes, a large number of the audience will feel that there is something optically similar between those things unfortunately. That's one reason I'm sick of the term "optics." Things don't look a certain way. They look a certain way to someone.

That's why dirty pool questions like the one the reporter asked (possibly mistakenly thinking she was being "a tough questioner" ) are so effective.

[aggiesal]

63. Without judgement, I'll let you decide ...

Feb. 24 Biden: "I did not say that, in fact, the sanction would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter. The mains of sanctions, the mainess of sanctions the increasing the pain, that's what would stop him."

Feb. 11 Unknown WH speaker: "The President believes that sanctions are intended to deter."

Feb. 20 Kamala Harris: "The purpose of the sanctions have always been and continues to be deterance."

Feb. 20 Anthony Blinken: "The purpose of the sanctions, in the first instance, is to try and deter Russia."

[gulliver]

65. Which, I think, makes it clear.

The intention is to deter. The hope is to deter. No one said it was expected to deter Putin. In fact, as everyone should recall, Biden said he thought Putin would probably invade. Moreover, the administration called it every step of the way.

I think your first quote is probably March 24, not Feb. 24, right? And your other quotes are prior to the invasion (right up to the beginning). So, of course, prior to the invasion, the purpose of the sanctions was deterrence. After that, the purpose became severe punishment, the better for future deterrence.

It's lazy (or worse) thinking on the part of the reporter in this case to equate deterrence not occurring with sanctions "not working," and, as I've said to make an implicit statement Biden or anyone else equated the two.

[MichMan]

67. Just because other people in the administration all said it, President Biden never did.

His reply was factual

[treestar]

61. I guess we have to decide whether voters

only care about gas prices, or whether they are so sophisticated as to watch MSNBC and notice this sort of thing and see bad "optics."

[Emile]

72. and Republicans are worried about Biden's cognitive abilities.