HYGO News Biden looked Putin in the eye, Psaki Contradicts Sullivan Nord Stream 2 Sanction, Biden Credibility
Sullivan Claims Biden “Looked Putin in the Eye,” Psaki Contradicts Him on Nord Stream 2, Reporter Asks If Biden Is Living Up to Credibility Pledge
On December 7, 2021, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan briefed reporters following President Biden’s video call with Russian President Vladimir Putin amid the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. Sullivan delivered the headline that Biden had “looked President Putin in the eye” and warned of consequences that “we did not do in 2014” but was “prepared to do now” — without specifying what those consequences were. Hours later, Press Secretary Jen Psaki appeared to contradict Sullivan by saying that additional Nord Stream 2 sanctions “would not be an effective deterrent” and would “not effectively change the behavior of President Putin.” The video also captured Psaki breaking from Ocasio-Cortez and Chicago Mayor Lightfoot on smash-and-grab retail thefts (“we don’t agree”), Sullivan dismissing questions about whether the Afghanistan withdrawal had emboldened Russia, and a reporter pressing Sullivan on whether Biden was “living up to” his campaign pledge to restore American credibility.
”I Will Look You in the Eye”
A reporter posed the central question directly to Sullivan: “What are the strong economic measures? And how are they different from the ones you put on Russia in 2014 which didn’t deter Russia from taking Crimea — what are they and why do you think they’ll work better this time?”
Sullivan’s response relied on dramatic language rather than specifics: “I will look you in the eye and tell you, as President Biden looked President Putin in the eye and told him today, that things we did not do in 2014 — we are prepared to do now.”
When pressed for details, Sullivan said the administration would “prefer to communicate that directly to the Russians” and work through them “detail by detail with our European” allies. The refusal to specify what measures were on the table frustrated reporters who noted that deterrence required the adversary to know what consequences they faced.
Sullivan also argued that the U.S. was “prepared to deal with any contingency” but refused to characterize whether the world was “safer” after the Biden-Putin call: “The ultimate metric for whether the world is safer or not is facts on the ground and actions taken, in this case, by Russia. Let’s see.”
Psaki Contradicts Sullivan on Nord Stream 2
The sharpest internal contradiction came when Psaki addressed Nord Stream 2 — the Russian gas pipeline to Germany that had become the most prominent potential leverage point in the Ukraine standoff.
Multiple reporters pressed on whether the administration regretted waiving sanctions on Nord Stream 2 earlier in 2021, a decision that many members of Congress had criticized. Psaki’s response directly undercut the leverage argument: “What Jake was making the point — or additional steps on Nord Stream 2 — is that that actually would not be an effective deterrent. That is not effectively going to change the behavior of President Putin.”
She added a counterintuitive argument: “The fact is the gas is not currently flowing through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which means that it’s not operating, which means that it’s not leverage for Putin. Indeed, it is leverage for the West, because if Vladimir Putin wants to see gas flow through that pipeline, he may not want to take the risk of invading Ukraine.”
Critics noted several problems with this logic. First, the administration had waived sanctions on Nord Stream 2 earlier in the year, removing the most concrete tool Congress had identified for pressuring Russia. Second, Psaki was now arguing that the pipeline the administration had refused to sanction was simultaneously “not leverage for Putin” and “leverage for the West” — a framing that seemed to justify the waiver by redefining its consequences. Third, if Nord Stream 2 sanctions would not deter Putin, it raised the question of what would.
The Afghanistan Shadow
A reporter drew a direct line from Afghanistan to Ukraine, asking whether Biden’s broken promises and the chaotic withdrawal had “emboldened enemies.” Sullivan dismissed the connection: “Vladimir Putin, standing behind then-President Medvedev, in 2008 invaded Georgia when we had 150,000 or more troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The connection between our deployments in foreign wars and the calculus of Russian leaders when it comes to the post-Soviet space — there’s not good evidence to support that.”
A reporter then posed the bigger question: “The withdrawal from Afghanistan over the summer was widely criticized. There are increasing tensions with China and Taiwan. And now you have Russian troops massing on the border with Ukraine. Candidate Biden campaigned on a pledge to restore America’s credibility on the world stage on his foreign policy experience. Is he living up to that pledge?”
Sullivan deflected to the Afghanistan promise: “He also campaigned on a promise to bring an end to a 20-year war that should have ended 10 years ago.” The answer addressed one campaign promise while avoiding the broader question about whether the execution of that promise had damaged American credibility.
A reporter also raised a “nightmare scenario” where Putin invaded Ukraine while Xi simultaneously used force against Taiwan. Sullivan acknowledged the scenario without dismissing it: “The United States is going to take every action that we can take from the point of view of both deterrence and diplomacy to make sure that the Taiwan scenario you just described never happens and to try to avert the invasion and deter the invasion into Ukraine."
"We Don’t Agree” — Psaki on Smash-and-Grab Thefts
In a domestic policy segment of the briefing, a reporter asked Psaki to respond to two prominent Democrats who had minimized the wave of organized retail thefts sweeping major cities. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot had appeared to blame retailers for not better protecting their merchandise, and Representative Ocasio-Cortez had “doubted allegations of organized retail thefts,” claiming “the data didn’t back it up.”
Psaki’s response was unusually blunt: “We don’t agree. And major retailers, as well as state and local leaders like Governor Newsom, have identified this as a serious concern. We agree.”
The two-word break with Ocasio-Cortez — “we don’t agree” — was notable given the administration’s typical reluctance to publicly contradict progressive Democrats. The smash-and-grab robberies, which involved coordinated groups rushing into high-end stores and stealing merchandise in broad daylight, had become a major political issue in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago during the 2021 holiday season.
Iran, Proxies, and the Nuclear Deal
A reporter challenged Sullivan on the Iran nuclear deal negotiations, arguing that the administration was “going to redo the Obama deal, lifting sanctions and freezing millions of dollars to this regime that is going to be spread to proxies like Hezbollah.”
Sullivan pushed back with three points. First, he argued that Hezbollah and Iranian proxies had “continued to menace” the region after Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, meaning “not being in the nuclear deal has hardly been a solution to the proxies.” Second, he said “nothing about the nuclear deal stops the United States’ capacity to deal with those proxies.” Third, he maintained the administration’s position that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon required a diplomatic framework.
The exchange highlighted the ongoing tension between the administration’s desire to rejoin the nuclear deal and critics’ argument that the deal enriched Iran’s military proxies without addressing their regional aggression.
The Credibility Question
The briefing’s through-line was American credibility — whether Biden’s foreign policy posture was deterring adversaries or inviting aggression. Sullivan’s dramatic “look you in the eye” rhetoric was undercut by the absence of specific consequences, Psaki’s argument that the most visible leverage tool would not work, and the series of unresolved crises that reporters cataloged: Afghanistan, China-Taiwan tensions, Russian aggression, and Iranian proxies.
Psaki declined to announce any plans for Biden to address the American people directly on the Ukraine situation, saying only: “I’m sure the President will certainly be communicating with all of you and the public about this and many other issues in the days to come. I don’t have anything to preview for you at this point in time.”
Key Takeaways
- Sullivan said Biden “looked President Putin in the eye” and warned of consequences “we did not do in 2014” but refused to specify what those measures were, while Psaki contradicted the leverage argument by saying Nord Stream 2 sanctions “would not be an effective deterrent” and “not effectively change the behavior of President Putin.”
- A reporter listed the Afghanistan withdrawal, China-Taiwan tensions, and Russian troop buildup and asked if Biden was “living up to” his credibility pledge — Sullivan deflected to ending the 20-year war, while separately dismissing the “nightmare scenario” of simultaneous Russian and Chinese military action by saying the U.S. would “take every action” to prevent it.
- Psaki bluntly broke with Ocasio-Cortez and Lightfoot on smash-and-grab retail thefts — “we don’t agree” — calling it “a serious concern,” while Sullivan argued that Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal had “hardly been a solution” to Iranian proxies and declined to announce when Biden would address the public on Ukraine.