Is it a mistake to make it clear we will not defend Ukraine?

[David Hume]

Biden repeatedly announced that he will not send US troops to defend Ukraine. This is completed different from his position regarding Taiwan. For Taiwan, the traditional position is strategic ambiguity. We request the two sides to not change the status quo, without saying clearly if we will defend Taiwan. In this way, we deter CCP from invasion, and also to deter Taiwan from declaring independence. (For those who don't know, the Republic of China, the de facto government of Taiwan, was defeated by CCP in 1949 and lost control of the mainland China. Legally ROC and PRC are two regimes both claiming the sovereign of both mainland China and Taiwan, and still in civil war. The official position of US and most of the countries is that Taiwan was a part of China, but did not confirm this China is PRC. CCP had made it clear that if ROC changes its name to get rid of "China" and declares independence, they will attack.) CCP has not made the decision to invade, largely due to the fear that US may defend Taiwan.

It may be better if we make Putin not sure if we will defend Ukraine as well. I am not sure how effective it could be. Maybe Putin firmly believe we will not defend Ukraine so this does't not work at all, or maybe Putin is willing to risk WW3. But on the other hand, I don't it really hurt to maintain strategic ambiguity so why not give it a try.

[GALeftist]

The man is clearly not a rational actor so I'm a bit skeptical

[GeneralMacArthur]

I don't think there's much strategic ambiguity in Taiwan.  We've been extremely close allies since its foundation and early in the Cold War we repeatedly considered teaming up with Taiwan to attack China.  The U.S. has always been implicitly committed to defense of Taiwan and there's no reason to believe that's changed just because we haven't been as active militarily in that sphere of the world lately.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't think there's much strategic ambiguity in Taiwan.  We've been extremely close allies since its foundation and early in the Cold War we repeatedly considered teaming up with Taiwan to attack China.  The U.S. has always been implicitly committed to defense of Taiwan and there's no reason to believe that's changed just because we haven't been as active militarily in that sphere of the world lately.

If it has changed, it has changed only because China's became powerful enough to make US defending Taiwan too costly. But Japan possibly invoking the right of collective self-defense raises the cost for Beijing and means that the point at which that is reached is higher than it was before.
US+Japan needs to be inferior to Beijing for us to consider giving up any commitment to defending Taiwan in any way, shape, or form.

[Dereich]

Biden's statement wasn't made to be heard by international audiences but by domestic ones. Its true that strategic ambiguity would make Russia have to consider what we'd do and make them more cautious but Biden is more concerned with comforting anti-war American voters by assuring them that we won't go to war. He's made it very clear to them what his priority is with this war: not getting involved. Is that the right call? Who knows.

[David Hume]

I don't think there's much strategic ambiguity in Taiwan.  We've been extremely close allies since its foundation and early in the Cold War we repeatedly considered teaming up with Taiwan to attack China.  The U.S. has always been implicitly committed to defense of Taiwan and there's no reason to believe that's changed just because we haven't been as active militarily in that sphere of the world lately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity#Taiwan

The oldest and longest running of the United States' deliberately ambiguous policies was whether and how it would defend the Republic of China on Taiwan in the event of an attack by the People's Republic of China (Mainland China). This issue is at the cornerstone of United States–Taiwan relations and a central sticking point in United States–China relations. This policy was intended to discourage both a unilateral declaration of independence by ROC leaders and an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. The United States seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity in 2001 after then-President George W. Bush stated that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.[7] He later used more ambiguous language, stating in 2003 that "The United States policy is one China".[8]

In October 2021, President Biden announced a commitment that the USA would defend Taiwan if attacked by the People's Republic of China.[9] But then the White House quickly clarified: "The president was not announcing any change in our policy and there is no change in our policy".[10]

[David Hume]

Biden's statement wasn't made to be heard by international audiences but by domestic ones. Its true that strategic ambiguity would make Russia have to consider what we'd do and make them more cautious but Biden is more concerned with comforting anti-war American voters by assuring them that we won't go to war. He's made it very clear to them what his priority is with this war: not getting involved. Is that the right call? Who knows.

Even so, Russia would absolutely have known his position. He could choose to not get involved without announcing it so early.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I don't think there's much strategic ambiguity in Taiwan.  We've been extremely close allies since its foundation and early in the Cold War we repeatedly considered teaming up with Taiwan to attack China.  The U.S. has always been implicitly committed to defense of Taiwan and there's no reason to believe that's changed just because we haven't been as active militarily in that sphere of the world lately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity#Taiwan

The oldest and longest running of the United States' deliberately ambiguous policies was whether and how it would defend the Republic of China on Taiwan in the event of an attack by the People's Republic of China (Mainland China). This issue is at the cornerstone of United States–Taiwan relations and a central sticking point in United States–China relations. This policy was intended to discourage both a unilateral declaration of independence by ROC leaders and an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. The United States seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity in 2001 after then-President George W. Bush stated that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.[7] He later used more ambiguous language, stating in 2003 that "The United States policy is one China".[8]

In October 2021, President Biden announced a commitment that the USA would defend Taiwan if attacked by the People's Republic of China.[9] But then the White House quickly clarified: "The president was not announcing any change in our policy and there is no change in our policy".[10]

Yes, it's officially ambiguous on paper, just like most of our relationship with Taiwan.  But in practice there's absolutely no question about any aspect of that relationship.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Biden repeatedly announced that he will not send US troops to defend Ukraine. This is completed different from his position regarding Taiwan. For Taiwan, the traditional position is strategic ambiguity. We request the two sides to not change the status quo, without saying clearly if we will defend Taiwan. In this way, we deter CCP from invasion, and also to deter Taiwan from declaring independence. (For those who don't know, the Republic of China, the de facto government of Taiwan, was defeated by CCP in 1949 and lost control of the mainland China. Legally ROC and PRC are two regimes both claiming the sovereign of both mainland China and Taiwan, and still in civil war. The official position of US and most of the countries is that Taiwan was a part of China, but did not confirm this China is PRC. CCP had made it clear that if ROC changes its name to get rid of "China" and declares independence, they will attack.) CCP has not made the decision to invade, largely due to the fear that US may defend Taiwan.

It may be better if we make Putin not sure if we will defend Ukraine as well. I am not sure how effective it could be. Maybe Putin firmly believe we will not defend Ukraine so this does't not work at all, or maybe Putin is willing to risk WW3. But on the other hand, I don't it really hurt to maintain strategic ambiguity so why not give it a try.

On the flipside if Putin decided to make a move anyway then the Chinese might assume that since his response to Ukraine after an ambiguous stance was weak that the same applies to Taiwan. Empty threats are even worse than saying nothing in terms of deterrence.

[Ebowed]

On the one hand, it's a political reality that there is no appetite domestically to get involved in a military conflict in Ukraine.

On the other hand, for Biden to telegraph repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that the US would not get involved, was unnecessary and further solidified the understanding that Biden is weak and the US is so far into its decline that it is not even attempting to hide it.  His disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan was probably enough to signal his position without stating it directly, anyway.  But in the end, Putin was determined to launch an illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it probably doesn't matter that much what Biden said or did not say beforehand.

[CumbrianLefty]

On the one hand, it's a political reality that there is no appetite domestically to get involved in a military conflict in Ukraine.

On the other hand, for Biden to telegraph repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that the US would not get involved, was unnecessary and further solidified the understanding that Biden is weak and the US is so far into its decline that it is not even attempting to hide it.  His disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan was probably enough to signal his position without stating it directly, anyway.  But in the end, Putin was determined to launch an illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it probably doesn't matter that much what Biden said or did not say beforehand.

Uh-huh.

[It’s so Joever]

On the one hand, it's a political reality that there is no appetite domestically to get involved in a military conflict in Ukraine.

On the other hand, for Biden to telegraph repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that the US would not get involved, was unnecessary and further solidified the understanding that Biden is weak and the US is so far into its decline that it is not even attempting to hide it.  His disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan was probably enough to signal his position without stating it directly, anyway.  But in the end, Putin was determined to launch an illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it probably doesn't matter that much what Biden said or did not say beforehand.

Uh-huh.

Difference between this and Afghanistan is that Biden had perfect intel this time as we saw. Afghanistan was different where he was operating under faulty intel, so I don’t blame him for the withdrawal (which was as good as possible given the situation)
However, this was something Biden himself chose to do on his own. Biden failed here.

[Torie]

Biden announced that Ukraine was expendable by failing to give Ukraine the arms and training that if it now had them in hand would be giving Russia a much more bloody nose at the moment. It has been obvious for months what Putin had planned. Otherwise his actions make zero sense. The most ominous aspect was and is the emerging alliance of China and Russia. That has very uncomfortable echos of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

So no, it was not a mistake because it was obvious anyway. Plus, I don't think NATO was remotely prepared to defend Ukraine, at least to the extent of being able to do it without the kind of losses that are just not tolerable, politically or otherwise. Getting into a land war with Russia has always been viewed as a non starter given the costs, even before factoring in the unleashing of MAD.

I did not respond to the poll because I don't agree with either option.