David E. Sanger is the best foreign affairs reporter the New York Times, or anybody else, has.

WASHINGTON — When President Biden declared to reporters on Wednesday...that President Vladimir V. Putin was a “war criminal,”...he was...personalizing the conflict, in a way past presidents have avoided at moments of crisis with the United States’ leading nuclear-armed adversary. And his remark underscored how personal condemnation has become policy, as Mr. Biden and his top aides frame Mr. Putin as a pariah, an indiscriminate killer who should be standing trial at The Hague.

That was a mistake.

Biden amplified his attacks on Thursday, calling Mr. Putin “a murderous dictator, a pure thug who is waging an immoral war against the people of Ukraine.”

Amplified mistake.

... what began as a visceral reaction appears to reflect a strategic decision. ...diplomats and intelligence officials from several countries say [the] sanctions are seen by Mr. Putin as an effort to stoke Russian unrest, turning both wealthy oligarchs and ordinary Russians against his rule.

That is a dumb strategy unless Biden's goal is World War III.

The White House says that “regime change”...Russia is not on Washington’s...agenda. But in past cases when presidents have called national leaders war criminals — Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Bashar al-Assad of Syria — it has frequently been linked to an effort, covert or overt, to drive them from office.

And, as close readers with good memories recall, regime change drives Putin deeper into his paranoia. He obsessively watched the gruesome footage of Muammar Gaddafi's dead body pulled from a drain pipe, his lifeless and bloodied face lifted for the world's cameras to record. HUGE mistake.

...
[Some] American intelligence officials have said that Putin views the conflict not only as a war to reclaim Ukraine, but to push back on American power. They said he increasingly sees himself wrapped in a struggle with Mr. Biden, whom he views as the last of a generation of Washington Cold Warriors.

Isn't that special?

Biden and Putin have not talked since Feb. 12, when the American president made one last attempt to warn the Russian leader that an attack would lead to crushing sanctions, more arms to the Ukrainians and a major buildup of troops and arms on NATO’s eastern front. That buildup was exactly the result Mr. Putin was trying to forestall.

It is almost unimaginable that the two men will be dealing with each other directly anytime soon....

...

The enmity between the two men has been barely disguised for years, since the day when Biden, as vice president, by his account told Mr. Putin that he had looked in his eyes and seen no soul. “We understand one another,” Mr. Putin is said to have replied.

Oh, it's a blood feud! Oh, how special. What could possibly go wrong!

But it comes at a moment when Washington’s biggest concern is that Putin will escalate the war — and reach for weapons of mass destruction.

Right! Biden's in Washington, is that his "biggest concern" too? If it is he's sure showing he doesn't give a shit about his biggest concern.

Just hours before Biden’s declaration, his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told Nikolai P. Patrushev, Putin’s main national security adviser, that “any possible Russian decision to use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine” would result in an even harsher Western response. Several of Biden’s aides have been concerned that if the Russian leader feels cornered or believes the United States is trying to foment opposition, the chances that he will reach for such weapons could be heightened.

Why would he possibly feel that way?

So the debate underway in Washington now is what, exactly, might trigger Putin. 

Yes, oh what a special debate. "I think POTUS calling Putin a war criminal might trigger Putin." "Oh, no it will pacify him. He'll withdraw from Ukraine and apologize."

Some believe he could lash out if dissent in Russia, already visible in street demonstrations, poses a real threat. Others believe that his trigger point might be a more direct entry into the war by NATO countries. They are already providing antitank and antiaircraft weapons that have contributed to what the Pentagon now estimates is a Russian death toll of at least 7,000 troops.

One former intelligence official noted that it was Hillary Clinton’s support for anti-Putin street demonstrations in Russia that prompted him to order the hacking of the Democratic National Committee when Mrs. Clinton was running for president in 2016. Putin is a believer, the official said, in retribution.

Oh, that's long over. He'd never do something like that again. He learned his lesson.

Putin would have good reason to think the Biden administration is looking forward to his exit...

The last time an American president went head-to-head with a Russian or Soviet leader with so much at stake was 60 years ago, during the Cuban missile crisis, widely regarded as the closest the world came to Armageddon. [Until now...Sorry David, continue.] And yet at that moment, in October 1962, President Kennedy’s instinct was to avoid personalizing the conflict — and to help his Soviet counterpart, Nikita S. Khrushchev, find a way out of direct confrontation.

BAD mistake by JFK, that old softie.

...

“He kept warning the members of X-COMM,” the committee Kennedy established to guide through the 13 days of the crisis, “that they had to see things from Khrushchev’s perspective. He said we had to give him something here to step away. And he was careful in his public comments not to personalize his criticisms of Khrushchev himself. It’s a direct contrast to what Biden did.”-Fredrik Logevall, Harvard historian, Kennedy biographer.

It is. Biden wants to be his "own man."

...

Blinken said the president was now willing to go further with Putin, and begin collecting evidence of war crimes. “So when I tell you that there will be accountability and consequences for any war crimes that have been committed,” Blinken said on Thursday, “I hope you’ll take me at my word..."

We do, dear Tony, we do. BIDEN HAS FUCKED UP.