Biden insists Russia sanctions never meant to deter Putin from invading Ukraine despite prior messaging
By: Kyle Morris (Fox News)
If sanctions never deter, as Biden has clearly stated, then the relevant question becomes 'what are sanctions intended to do'? Sanctions have become a weapon of choice for the United States. The United States threatens just about everyone with sanctions. So, what are sanctions intended to do?
In this case, Joe Biden says sanctions are being used politically to unify a bloc of countries. Which means the sanctions weren't about Ukraine or Russia at all. Supporting sanctions has become a political litmus test for support of the United States. Biden has been using Ukraine to unify NATO and establish a resurgent influence of NATO primarily in Europe. No doubt Biden will claim the United States is back. Back from where?
A resurgent NATO hasn't seemed to help Ukraine. NATO is not a humanitarian organization so NATO won't do anything for the flood of refugees. NATO won't have to deal with rebuilding infrastructure and cities. NATO will only rebuild Ukraine's military arsenal and train Ukrainians to fight Russia; that's NATO's reason to exist. Biden has added economic sanctions to NATO's defense capabilities but Biden has admitted sanctions are not intended to deter war.
So what has Biden really been fighting for? Freedom? Democracy? Institutional ideology? Greater ability to dominate the world?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Biden suggested Thursday that sanctions were not meant to deter the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling reporters now that "sanctions never deter."
"Sir, deterrence didn't work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today," Biden was asked by CBS reporter Christina Ruffini during a press conference at a NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium.
"Let's get something straight. You remember if you covered me from the very beginning, I did not say that, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter," Biden responded.
Ruffini repeated the question, asking whether these actions could make Putin change course.
"That's not what I said. You're playing a game with me. The answer's no," Biden snapped back.
"The maintenance of sanctions, increasing the pain and the demonstration [is] 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," Biden said.
Biden said the "single most important thing is for us to stay unified" and for the world to "continue to focus on what a brute [Putin] is, and all the innocent people's lives are being lost and ruined."
"We have to stay fully, totally thoroughly united," he added.
Speaking with Fox News Digital just minutes after Biden's NATO speech, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said, "Of course sanctions deter."
"But they must be structured to be impactful in order to work," he added, saying Biden should have taken tougher action against Putin prior to his invasion of Ukraine.
Biden's remarks come after weeks of messaging from key Biden administration officials - including Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken - who claimed the sanctions placed on Russia were meant to deter the actions of Putin.
Asked in February whether she believed sanctions would deter Putin, Harris said at the time, "Absolut- — we strongly believe — and remember also that the sanctions are a product not only of our perspective as the United States but a shared perspective among our Allies. And the Allied relationship is such that we have agreed that the deterrence effect of these sanctions is still a meaningful one, especially because - remember, also - we still sincerely hope that there is a diplomatic path out of this moment."
US Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a joint press conference with Poland's President Andrzej Duda on the occasion of their meeting at Belwelder Palace, in Warsaw, Poland, Thursday, March 10, 2022. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)
Harris also said in February that the "purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence."
Prior to Russia's invasion, during an interview with CNN, Blinken insisted that the "purpose of the sanctions in the first instance is to try to deter Russia from going to war."
Similarly, in February, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said "sanctions can be a powerful tool" and that the overall goal of imposing sanctions on Russia was to "have a deterrent effect."
"Sanctions can be a powerful tool," Psaki said. "They have been in a lot of moments throughout history. And what we view them as — or how we're viewing them as we're starting high, as Daleep just conveyed here, in terms of the significance and the severity of the sanctions that were announced today — yes, our intention is to have a deterrent effect."
White House press secretary Jen Psaki speaks during a press briefing at the White House, Friday, March 18, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
During that same briefing, Daleep Singh, deputy national security adviser for International Economics, said sanctions "serve a higher purpose" and that is to "deter and prevent."
"Sanctions are not an end to themselves. They serve a higher purpose. And that purpose is to deter and prevent," Singh said. "They're meant to prevent and deter a large-scale invasion of Ukraine that could involve the seizure of major cities, including Kyiv. They're meant to prevent large-scale human suffering that could involve tens of thousands of casualties in a conflict."
During an appearance on 'America's Newsroom' in February, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said the administration wanted the sanctions "to have a deterrent effect."
"We want them to have a deterrent effect, clearly," Kirby said. "And he hasn't invaded yet. […] So look, if you punish somebody for something they haven't done yet ... they might as well go ahead and do it."
A Twitter account managed by the Republican National Committee highlighted remarks from officials in the Biden administration who, at one point, claimed that the sanctions were meant to deter Putin.
Also in February, Jake Sullivan, Biden's national security adviser, said "the president believes that sanctions are intended to deter."
"And in order for them to work — to deter, they have to be set up in a way where if Putin moves, then the costs are imposed," Sullivan added. "We believe that that is the right logic both on its own merits, but equally importantly, we believe that the most important fundamental for anything that unfolds in this crisis, whether through diplomacy or as a result of military action, is that the West be strong, be united, and be determined to operate with common purpose."
Tags
Who is online
533 visitors
One thing that will never be part of the mythologized history of the Ukraine War will be attempts at diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise to avoid war.
Biden threw Ukraine under the bus to get what Biden wanted. The United States is back! Back from where?
That is plainly untrue as a cursory internet search produces years and years of serious news stories documenting countless meetings and conferences and negotiations sincerely participated in including all the parties and impartial members trying to avert Putin from invading Ukraine. Let's be honest.
You mean the Minsk protocols and agreements negotiated in 2014? You mean the same points and conditions in the Minsk agreements that Putin cited as justification for invading Ukraine?
Yes, let's be honest.
There were many other failed negotiations...
Nothing could deter Putin's Folly in Ukraine!
Nothing could deter Putin except security guarantees and an end to the war in Donbas.
Why do you defend Putin?
Security guarantees for Putin? Why? So he can continue to use plundered wealth of the Russian Federation to destabilize the world's democracies?
Another ridiculous conspiracy theory.
And, yet, NATO and US military personnel deployed to Ukraine were withdrawn as a precautionary measure prior to the invasion.
NATO and the United States chose to leave Ukraine rather than reinforce military operations in Ukraine. Wonder what the Ukrainians thought as they waved goodbye?
Yes, because Ukraine is not a NATO Member!
The Russian nuclear threat and the Russia-China relationship has shaped this conflict. The strategic factors are far more complicated than your simplistic analysis suggests.
What prevented Ukraine being added to NATO before the invasion?
Russia began massing troops and conducting exercises close to the Ukrainian border last July. Biden told us those massed Russian troops were a prelude to invasion. Biden was sending military arms and munitions to Ukraine before the invasion. According to Biden, the war in Ukraine was not a surprise.
Are you suggesting that Biden couldn't convince NATO to expedite Ukraine's membership before the invasion? Or did Biden's plan depend upon what has actually happened?
Joe Biden has shaped this conflict. Biden even threatened China's Xi Jinping. Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. But Biden has stated that sanctions never deter.
As I've stated elsewhere, nuclear weapons only deter the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons (or the threat of nuclear weapons) are no more a deterrence to war than are sanctions (or a threat of sanctions).
The only thing that has a chance of avoiding war is diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise. No, diplomacy doesn't always work; that's true. But threats don't seem to always work, either.
Biden didn't use all the tools of statecraft that were available. Why?
The threat of nuclear weapons comes from Russia and that threat has influenced the non-nuclear actions taken by other nations on the planet.
I smell another conspiracy theory ...
So if some that has nuclear weapons threatens to use them, you would just let them destroy any other country they wished. Would you allow China to invade and take over Taiwan? How about North Korea? You you stand by and let the north take over South Korea if kim jong nutcase threatened to use nukes?
Good thing you are not PotUS.
Every situation is different. But, regardless of the circumstances, when a nation has the ability to cause the destruction of the planet a rational mind necessarily takes that harsh reality into consideration.
This is not a video game. There are no do-overs. Every move when dealing with M.A.D. needs careful, responsible, measured consideration.
This is not a situation conducive to someone who 'thinks' emotionally.
Sanctions are punishments not deterrent thus their preemptive deployment renders them superfluous...
Then why did the Biden administration gaslight the public and state the sanctions would deter Russia from invading Ukraine?
Because a threat of punitive action to come can be a potential deterrence (like an off-ramp) from catastrophic act and a refocus on constructive dialogue. But let us not be petty, the sanctions are in place, are working, and hopefully will help end this bloody war (when 'cooler' heads overcome 'hot' heads). If not then we develop and move on to new threats of deterrence and actions.
One more thing: People do stop pretending speak on international matters if you are going to be tired and jaded in your 'deliverances.' Develop a basic understanding that international politics is not the same 'challenge' or the same set of rules when dealing with emperors, kings, dictators, authoritarians, and presidents (for life).
That is, stop trying to tear down your own president: Biden is the only president we have for at least two and a half more years. We, constitutionally, decided tied his 'will' to lead to a congress and a set of courts (three branches of government) and more importantly to a VOTE. Don't pretend to not understand the limits WE placed on the 'hands' of our leader oh so very long ago!
That is simple! The threat of sanctions is used as a deterrent to disincentivise things we do do not want to happen . The application of sanctions is the punishment for not heading those threats of sanctions. Understand yet?
Odd how several here do not seem to grasp the distinction of a threat of sanctions vs. the application of same and the reasoning behind each action.
There seems to be a desire to blame Biden no matter what and any superficial excuse suffices.
It's all selective bias. The 80/20 rule flipped on its head. Take any perceived deficiency and purposely blow it out of proportion, while ignoring it opposite sufficiency. Some conservatives persist in seeing non-conservatives as objects to be diminished.
Except that is not what the administration said. From the link I posted..
Seems fairly clear to me and not aligned with what you are trying to say. The sanctions are intended to deter such actions, the costs are imposed if the action the sanctions are set to deter is still undertaken, such as the invasion of Ukraine. You are attempting to spin what was said vs what happened, but it's quite clear that the administration clearly stated what they felt the sanctions were set to do. Biden had to change his tune when the sanctions did not in fact deter the invasion.
That's picking apart sentences literally. Words and ideas are complex 'things' when you are trying to forego a war (of blood, gore, tears, and destruction.) . Life experience teaches all of us better than this kind of stinkin-thinkin. Let it go already. We're better than this.
Bullshit. The words used were simple and clear. The administration presented these sanctions would deter Russia from invading.
Now I believe everybody knows that the simple threat of a sanction is not a guarantee that said action will not be taken. You explained it rather well down in 3.
But words are important. If the sanctions could not prevent Putin from invading then why did the administration state that they would? Were they spinning the information for the American public and the world? Were they lying? Did they not know?
Had Trump stated such a thing when it's obviously not able to prevent the action what would your response to him be? You would have accused him and his administration of lying. Is it that important to you to spin what was said before the invasion vs what was said after the invasion started in order to cast Biden in a better light?
Well, that clarifies everything. Only the threat of sanctions are a deterrent.
Of course the threat would be meaningless without actually imposing sanctions. Seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Most people do not commit crimes because of the threat of the penalties (sanctions). We do not punish them for not committing crimes.
But, if and when people choose to go ahead and to commit crimes anyway then they are punished (sanctioned) as the consequence...
Who can't understand that difference? SMH!
Ahh! You will never know will you? Why? Because international war was not started under Trump. Importantly also, you, we, will never know how Trump would have answered this crisis (for good or ill). As I have stated, stopping Russia a first-class nuclear power from 'erupting' into all out war is a tedious endeavor and the 'whole world' is justified political 'calculations' to say and do 99.99 percent almost anything to keep its citizens safe and sound (from madmen causing a nuclear weapon detonation).
You know this. Do not attempt to ignore international intrique for the sake of a "gotcha." I will further clarify: When the choice is someone hurling a bomb across the world into your 'campsite' in the mountains (your back yard) and hitting oh say, someone you love squarely in the 'cheeks' and your writing or pronouncing bluster in hopes of it settling and bringing a 'madman' or madmen to their senses, what would you do?
International politics especially in the realm of dictators and kings is not the same as national politics of democratic-republic-constitutional rule. Understand this, and if not merely accept their is a distinction. For it is real and its happening. And we are going to say, bluster, do, and be rhetorical as often as seems fit to get all the mileage out of this (in hopes of saving lives or at least getting those lives time to find cover and safety).
He ought to understand these things from life experience. Judgement is 'clouded' because of some conservative politics: Own the 'libs." Never give in to liberals. (Even in the face of a near 'impossible' situation internationally.) BTW, international politics is the sole domain of a U.S. president acting on behalf of the security of its people. But, see how easy it is to even make that a miserable incursion in the hands of those who do not stop agitating against government at the U.S. shoreline?
You either understand this simple concept or you do not (and, I suspect, will not).
Sorry, swing and a miss. Never said or implied that Trump would have prevented the invasion or how Trump would have responded if the invasion occurred while he was still president. I said that if Trump, while president, stated that sanctions would prevent Russia from invading Ukraine and then after the invasion Trump had come out saying that sanctions were never a deterrent you would have joined the chorus shouting about another Trump lie. But you willingly follow the partisan line and attempt to further the spin on the topic. The only 'gotcha' in this is with you because you refuse to see and acknowledge what is right in front of your face.
You are attempting to argue something that was never in my commentary. This started with thread 2 where it was stated ..
And I responded with post 2.1 where I asked ..
Which is very much what happened. Before Russia actually invaded the Biden administration was all over the talk shows speaking about how the sanctions were set up to deter the invasion. After the invasion it is spun to the sanctions were never meant to deter. If President Trump could not rightfully get away with such a blatant lie then why do you allow President Biden to get away with it?
Ridiculous. In addition to economic disadvantage in the near and long term, hell, average Russians can't even get a Big Mac, Fries and Coke.
The sanctions will prove to the average Russian that because of Putin's actions their lives and futures are excluded from the rest of the world.
I do not know what you think, but I think the Russian people will not abide to have their lives conducted in the manner of North Korean 'citizens' and will rectify that in their own way.
Putin is not an edifice. He is an autocratic dictator.
I ask again. Why do you defend and legitimize his hold on the Russian Federation?
And I 'said,' "You will never know will you?" Just stop. This is sad. You can't speak to some future of what I might say about Trump (depending on how 'that one' might have stated it or any context surrounding it.) What is interesting, is even in your back-hand slap at me (I discern traits in Trump that play themselves out routinely) you can't bring yourself to admit Trump is full of "Sugar, honey, Ice, Tea." and water. Moreover, I pointed out to you Trump did not face this caliber of dangerous intrigue as president, we have no way to measure what his response may or may not have been—praiseworthy or a shameful.
There is a 'twisting' of the language by the Biden administration oh yes, I do hear it, but it only serves to clarify what is happening in-country in the fighting 'parties.' That is, I don't know why Biden is making a point about this rhetoric (sanctions can act as a deterrent or jut get 'factored in') but it is not something to "pounce on" when literal hell is busting at the seams internationally.
That is my LARGER point. Dont' get bogged down in rhetoric, hurt our own 'cause' internationally, waste gobs of money because somehow we let an internal squabble give support or 'mileage' to an evil bastard who is trained to manipulate "useful idiots" in remote countries.
Lastly, perhaps, Biden is playing loose with the language. All the more reason for why to not play this out any farther: ADJUST TO THE RHETORIC. Saving lives through sanctions still is the way to go (as we damn sure are not going to engage in direct warfare in an "impregnable" scenario. That is, Ukraine, being in the armpit of Russia will for its entire history past and present face Russia (or any other boundary line touching Russia) as something it can obtain.)
Funny you and your friends did just that from 2016 to 2020 and continue to try and tear him down to this day. Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you?
Yet again another ' but they did it first ' retort.
It is NEVER appropriate or productive to go after a PotUS based on partisan induced falsehoods.
Honest, truthful criticism is good. This rabid partisanship is not.
I know (of) Donald J. Trump and I know (of) Joe Biden, and Trump is no Biden. I can not support a habitual and blazon liar as Trump, because that would be wrong. Whatever 'shortcoming' Biden suffers from, being a habitual liar is not it.
What is sad is that you refuse to acknowledge what is right up front, you continue to twist to avoid what is evident. The simple fact is that before the invasion President Biden and his administration are on record stating that the sanctions would stop Russia from invading and after the invasion they changed to stating that sanctions would never have prevented the invasion. Plainly put, Biden is just as full of shit as Trump is.
But I'm done. You refuse to respond to what I have stated and instead twist to find an out. I won't bother with you any more as this is just not worth my time.
That is a pretty messed up, petty and twisted way of thinking just to come up with an angle to blame our President for Vlad Putin invading Ukraine. Russia and the Russian people were enjoying the fruits of Russia being a part of the modern world and its larger economy...
Putin blew that! The United States, NATO, The European Union have now imposed crippling sanctions on Russia and the Russian people.
Nobody is to blame except Vladimir Putin!
Ditto.
Let Snuffy have this 'vaulted' rhetorical moment to shine a spotlight on shifting 'fight talk' in the heat of a 'fray.' I don't care one way or the other. I will close with something Snuffy stated that goes to (his) "state of mind":
"Plainly put, Biden is just as full of shit as Trump is."
That is untrue. One can look at all the 'peripherals' (e.g., establishing an "alternative universe' in the White House itself) during the Trump presidential years (2017-2021), all his court cases, a bevy of lies, the 'paling around' with dictators, and then turn to look at Biden to date (2021 - present) a gaffe here or a questionable statement there. It becomes obvious, certain people are desperate to diminish and tag a good man who do not overreact or overwhelm as bad.
The mere expression: Donald Trump was and is a good leader is stupid on its face. That president tried to take this country where it should not and possibly could not go.
Let Snuffy 'walk.'
Sanctioning Russia will cost the people of the United States something, too. Russia was not isolated from the global economy; that's why the sanctions can punish Russia. By isolating the Russian economy, the global economy has become smaller. That wouldn't be a big deal if the United States had a resilient and more sustainable economy. But the United States is dependent upon imports; the United States is not an exporting country. The United States is dependent upon the global economy and cannot avoid the repercussions of making that global economy smaller.
The United States has to worry about the country's global suppliers that needed Russian energy, resources, technology, and goods. It's like removing a cog from an intricate machine and expecting the machine to continue to work as if nothing changed.
Vladimir Putin is the President of the Russian Federation. Calling Putin whatever name you want won't alter the fact that Putin is President of the Russian Federation.
The United States sanctioned Russia for 'interfering' in the political process of the United States. The claims by politicians in the United States is that Russia influenced the election to support the election of a President that Russia preferred.
So, now the United States is 'interfering' in the political process of the Russian Federation? The United States wants to influence the political process in the Russian Federation to support a change in leadership that the United States prefers?
A 'they did it first' excuse to justify meddling in the politics of other countries does not overshadow that the United States is legitimizing political meddling. If it is legitimate for the United States to seek regime change in other countries then it is just as legitimate for other countries to seek regime change in the United States.
The complexities of being 'head and family' to the international community involves interplay . The saying goes:
Let us, our nation, and other interested nations, resolve to avoid World War III if only we can get ahead of it on the path and thwart it.
wow.. are you closely related to someone else on this board? Go back thru my posts on this seed and re-read them. Nowhere did I blame the invasion of Ukraine by Russia on President Biden. You are either pulling shit or you truly have problems in reading and understanding the written word. I do blame President Biden for lying to the American public on the issue of sanctions. President Biden and members of his administration were on talk shows and news shows before the invasion began stating the sanctions would deter and prevent Russia. After the invasion Biden switched to how sanctions were never meant to deter the invasion. Plain and simple, there is it. President Biden lied to the American people. Is this now fucking clear enough to you on what I have been saying?
That has been explained. Threat of sanctions failed. Putin invaded Ukraine. Now Putin pays!
My father participated in The Normandy Invasion. I served in Vietnam, 68-69.
You are worried about the cost to America? Really?
If the autocracies prove successful, there will not be an America as we know it.
Putin is war criminal. An autocratic dictator. Russia and the World would be better served without him. Besides, if he falls many others will follow. And that will leave only one nuclear tipped autocratic dictatorship in the world. China.
Want to rephrase: Only one world power nuclear tipped autocratic dictatorship in the world. China.
Two months ago I asked 'what happens if Putin decides economic sanctions are acceptable?' (It's a bit meta but I need to post the link to support my statement. )
There wasn't an answer then. And now there's only a need to spin what should have been thought about two months ago.
What was there to think about or say? A 'madman' can behave irresponsibly 'at will.' This is not a sophomoric game, Nerm! Stop being reckless here. This is 'world-wide fire' trying to escape out into the open, while world leaders are trying to calm down a major holder of the keys to 'doomsday'! We have no way to know the breadth, height, or length to which Russia will allow Putin to take this! What we do know is this: If Putin goes too far—we have no choice but to counter or cow.
Now then, what is our role in this: Counter or Cow (down)?
Biden never countered anything. Biden didn't get into the fight. A month ago I still didn't believe Russia would invade Ukraine. Wars are messy and can spin out of control pretty quickly. I thought Russia invading Ukraine would elicit a response from the United States and Europe that would threaten Russia's strategic interest in Crimea and the Black Sea. Boy, was I ever wrong. Biden didn't do anything.
I pointed out how this would play out a month ago IF Russia invaded. (Another meta link that's needed to support my statement. ) Now tell me I was wrong.
What is the point of referencing that comment (on another article)? We can't get into this fight directly without taking it over (and boy oh boy would Ukraine like us to do that)! Of course, only a fool would suggest open warfare between two nuclear powers can be productive, and "cleansing" for Europe.
The 'deterrence' in nuclear war potentiality is that it will kick in survival instincts. But, do not kid yourself or this room, if a nuclear equipped weapons country decides through its leader, leaders, and in agreement with its people to take on the world: there is no force known to man that can forestall national insanity.
BTW, this type of 'power-play' was destined to happen. Why? Because though nuclear weapons are a tour de force deterrent dynamic-as it has always been with humans it still remains the same, we 'buck' everything sooner or later. Nuclear weapons can only 'deter' or hold back aggression so far, that is. Nations will always look for a way around what hinders them from their stated whims and drives.
So just stop this! You can't stop Putin, republicans can't Putin, democrats can't stop Putin and lastly, Trump can't stop a madman or madmen from their (insane) power plays if they insist on doing so.
Well, you've certainly added a lot of trigger points that don't address the issue at hand.
NATO has as many nuclear weapons as Russia. Yet, Russia was not deterred. Nuclear weapons only deter the use of nuclear weapons. That's the only thing nuclear weapons are good for. Nuclear weapons don't deter wars any more than sanctions deter wars.
Putin is getting everything he said he wanted before invading Ukraine. And Putin hasn't needed nuclear weapons to accomplish that.
What is your point? Putin is NOT GETTING EVERYTHING he wants before or after invading Ukraine, because it remains to be seen if he will continue in Russia leadership after all of this. And, that is just for 'starters' on a potential downward trajectory. This (war) could be an inflection point for Russia and personally for Putin.
NATO is not overly concerned about conventional warfare, because as Ukraine defense forces have illustrated, Russia is not so good at conventional warfare against a single nation. At known, the combined (Article 5 countries) of Europe, Canada, and the United States.
What is your point?
"Trigger points"? Who has time for dealing with that? The world is currently in a bad 'place' and the slightest tilt in the wrong direction could escalate this into a third world war. Trigger points? Get over that. Move on. And take the substance of the messaging for what it is!
Now let me enhance my earlier 'position' statement. Certain nations are not willing to allow nuclear mutual destruction to be the "be all" to end all conflicts between nuclear-tipped weapons powers. Russia is going 'live' about this. What does that mean? It means, the door has been opened to evolution of nuclear aggression. That is, certain nations are 'tired' of being told what they can or can not do for fear of nuclear attack (in theory or actual). They are evolving to confront their fears.
(Therefore, with each new attempt, we are entering a brave new world of violence, if we can't fix this together and now!)
Really? Ukraine is partitioned, we just don't know how far west that partition will be. Ukrainian airfields, military bases, and munition depots have been destroyed. Ukraine uses Russian equipment and weapons that can't be replaced. The hardline anti-Russian NAZI/fascist faction has been removed from the Azov region, no longer controls Mariupol, and cannot threaten land or maritime supply lines to Crimea. Crimea has been expanded northward to provide a protective buffer for Russian military installations in Crimea.
Removing Putin won't alter how the map of Ukraine is being redrawn. Do you think Ukrainians in the Donbas region are going to just give up their independence? The Zelensky government will have to fight Ukrainians to reclaim eastern Ukraine. It won't be a fight against Russians. And the Ukrainian military has been diminished so it would be a harder fight.
You're getting ahead of your yourself:
Nothing is 'concluded' yet. The 'shoutin' has not yet been tuned to begin. Does not mean it won't happen, but WATCH THIS SPACE!
Little "Timmy" is told that his weekly allowance will be stopped if his bad manners continue or escalate. Because Timmy likes his weekly income, he accepts the terms and deters his activities and the threat of "sanctions" does not occur. However, if Timmy's attitude is something on the order of: "So what" and he continues bad conduct - the deterrence becoming actual (hard-hitting) sanctions (or a well-timed and positioned kick in the. . .seat of his pants) and he potentially will reconsider his 'ways.'
Dig?
(Again) This is a tempest in a tea-spot. Sanctions can deter (and I do not know why Biden is tripping over his messaging by saying not so), because when faced with a choice of being sanctioned or 'at liberty' one can halt "proceedings" through no farther acts of aggression or face a 'or else' set of circumstances.